UPSC Editorial Analysis: Custodial Torture and Systemic Policing Reforms in India

General Studies-2; Topic: Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability, e-governance- applications, models, successes, limitations, and potential; citizens charters, transparency & accountability and institutional and other measures.

Introduction

• The conviction and death sentencing of nine police personnel by a Tamil Nadu trial court for the 2020 Sathankulam custodial deaths of a father and son has renewed focus on police brutality.
• While the court used the “rarest of the rare” doctrine to award capital punishment as a deterrent, statistics reveal that custodial violence is an institutionalized crisis rather than a series of isolated incidents.

About Custodial Torture and Systemic Policing Reforms in India

• Custodial torture reflects deep systemic institutional failures. Addressing it requires passing a dedicated anti-torture law, improving grueling police working conditions, and strictly enforcing independent accountability to restore public trust.

Legal and Constitutional Framework

• Constitutional Safeguards:
  • Article 21: The Supreme Court has established that the right to life and personal liberty includes absolute protection against torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
  • Article 20(3): Guarantees protection against self-incrimination, stating that no accused person can be compelled to be a witness against themselves.
• The Legislative Vacuum:
  • India signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1997 but has not yet ratified it. There is still no standalone, specific anti-torture law in the country.
• Procedural Failures:
  • Section 176(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) / Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) mandates that any custodial death must be inquired into by a Judicial Magistrate. In practice, these inquiries are frequently delayed, bypassed, or heavily influenced by local executive machinery.
• The Shield of Prior Sanction:
  • Section 197 of the CrPC mandates prior government sanction to prosecute public servants for actions done in the line of duty. This procedural hurdle makes registering a First Information Report (FIR) against police officers incredibly difficult, protecting erring officials under the guise of administrative immunity.

Societal and Cultural Dimensions

• Glorification of Extrajudicial Action:
  • Mainstream media frequently celebrate the “Singham” archetype—a police officer who bypasses legal processes to deliver instantaneous “justice.”
• Public Pressure for “Heavy-Handed” Policing:
  • Over 65% of police personnel report experiencing immense public and political pressure to deal with high-profile or heinous crimes swiftly. When a shocking crime occurs, public outrage demands immediate retribution, resulting in shortcut violence and scapegoating.
• Targeting the Marginalized:
  • Systemic data demonstrates that victims of custodial violence are disproportionately drawn from socio-economically marginalized sections—Dalits, Adivasis, religious minorities, and the poor—who lack the social capital or financial resources to access higher legal remedies.

Working Conditions of the Police

To resolve custodial violence, the systemic vulnerabilities and psychological state of the perpetrators must be addressed objectively.

This continuous, unaddressed stress creates deep-seated psychological frustration, rage, and exhaustion. In many instances, vulnerable individuals in custody become helpless outlets for this pent-up professional frustration.

International Standards and Best Practices

• The Minnesota Protocol (2016):
  • This UN-backed golden standard provides detailed guidelines on the investigation of potentially unlawful deaths, particularly those under state custody. It rests on three principles for the use of force: necessity, proportionality, and accountability.
• The Principle of Command Responsibility:
  • Internationally, senior officers are held legally accountable if they fail to prevent or punish human rights violations committed by subordinates under their direct command.

 Way Forward

• Enact a Dedicated Anti-Torture Law:
  • Parliament must pass a comprehensive law criminalizing custodial torture, ensuring stringent punishments and removing the shield of prior administrative sanctions for accused officers.
• Implementation of the Prakash Singh Judgement (2006):
  • The Supreme Court’s directives on police reforms must be implemented in letter and spirit, including setting up independent Police Complaints Authorities (PCA) at state and district levels.
• Operational Separation:
  • Separate the law-and-order machinery from the investigative wings of the police, as recommended by the Law Commission of India. This will reduce excessive workloads, improve investigation quality, and limit reliance on torture to extract confessions.
• Technological Accountability:
  • Ensure full compliance with the Supreme Court’s mandate in the Paramvir Singh Saini case, which requires the mandatory installation of functional CCTV cameras with audio recording capabilities across all sections of every police station.
• Humanizing the Force:
  • Introduce institutional reforms regarding fixed working hours, mandatory psychological counseling, and human rights sensitization modules during both induction and mid-career training.

Conclusion

• Eliminating custodial torture requires moving beyond reactionary punishments to address systemic failures. True reform demands enacting dedicated anti-torture laws, humanizing police working conditions, and strictly enforcing institutional accountability to uphold the rule of law.