Elusive Justice in Cases of Custodial Violence in India

Introduction

The recent death in custody of a detainee in Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh, is a stark reminder of the enduring problem of custodial deaths in India. Tragic incidents like this, which have become increasingly common, not only violate the fundamental right to life but also raise serious concerns about the state of human rights protection in the country. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has released a concerning list of cases profiling judicial and custodial deaths in India. A report highlights that approximately five custodial deaths are occurring every day in the country. This raises serious questions about the judiciary’s effectiveness in ensuring justice for individuals in police custody.

The list of deaths in police custody is long, and so is that of torture, grievous hurt, and maltreatment. Late in 2017, in a writ petition decided in the Supreme Court of India, the Chief Justice pointed out the increasing number of custodial deaths, namely, unnatural deaths in prison. An identical scenario unfolded in the most recent Jalaun case. Has this turned into a simpler method of seeking ‘summary justice’ before the court's verdict is given?

Definition and Development

Custodial death, as the name suggests, is the death that occurs while the person is in the custody of the police or other law enforcement bodies. Examining the origin and evolution of the laws about custodial deaths takes us back to the early British era in India. While the Indian Penal Code of 1860 briefly introduced the concept of legal protection for the accused, its enforcement was lax.

The biggest change in the status quo happened post-independence in India. The Constitution of India enshrined the Right to Life and personal liberty through Article 21. This provided a legal basis for challenging custodial deaths and torture. Following this, some landmark judgements like R.D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P. (2006) and Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana (2016) further highlighted the State’s responsibility for the safety and well-being of individuals in its custody and promptness, thoroughness, and independent investigation in custodial death cases, respectively.

Many constructive steps have been taken on the legislative level as well. Take, for example, the several amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to strengthen the provisions on custodial deaths. The addition of Section 173(1) mandates the investigation of the cases to be completed within a period of 2 months. Apart from this, another crucial amendment was the amendment of Section 176, where subsection 1(A) has been inserted that essentially strengthens judicial inquiry procedures and widens the ambit of custodial deaths by including rape and other forms of violence.

The enactment of the Protection of Human Rights Act (1993) also marks a milestone moment in the development of stricter laws and transparent actions to address custodial violence and deaths. It established and empowered the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to independently investigate human rights violations, including custodial deaths.

Comparative Analysis of Custodial Deaths in Foreign Jurisdictions

India is not the only country facing challenges in regulating the ground realities pertaining to custodial violence and deaths. Even some of the most advanced nations make it to the list, for example, the USA, the UK, Australia, Germany, etc.

In the U.S., custodial deaths often result from police encounters rather than formal custody situations like jails or prisons. The use of excessive force by law enforcement has led to numerous high-profile cases that have sparked national outrage and calls for reform. Evidence of systemic misconduct within police departments triggers investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice, but accountability levels vary. Similarly, in the UK, a joint Committee on Human Rights was set up in 2004 following the rising number of cases and concerns around untimely deaths in custody. The report of the committee suggested the adoption of stricter measures when dealing with cases of human rights violations, especially those of custodial deaths. It also emphasised the need for independent investigations into the matter with more focus on detainees with mental health issues and substance abuse problems. Quoting from a report by the Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths In Custody that was further investigated by Amnesty International, Australia's Aboriginal people are incarcerated in police custody at a rate 29 times greater than that of the general population. This is mainly due to the disproportionate number of Aboriginal people in prisoner police custody.

Conclusion and suggestions

The alarming increase in the number of custodial deaths in India raises critical questions about systemic failures within law enforcement and judicial mechanisms designed to protect human rights. Despite legislative measures and constitutional guarantees aimed at safeguarding individuals’ rights, incidents like the recent Jalaun case reveal a troubling reality where justice remains elusive for many.

To effectively combat this issue, India must adopt best practices from other nations while reinforcing its commitment to human rights through independent oversight mechanisms and rigorous enforcement of existing laws. One troubling fact on the international stage concerning human rights and custodial torture is that India has still not ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which was signed in October 1997, leaving India with the Right to Life under Article 21 as the sole critical right against torture. A need for strong independent legislation is highly needed, which when coupled with specific sections dealing with custodial violence in the CrPC gives prompt justice to the detainee under threat. Addressing custodial deaths requires a multifaceted approach that combines legal reform, accountability measures, and a societal commitment to upholding human rights as fundamental principles guiding law enforcement practices in India. Learning from international jurisdictions also plays a pivotal role when it comes to making better legal infrastructure around the prevention of custodial violence and deaths, for example, creating independent commissions to monitor police practices and investigate custodial deaths. This can ensure transparency and accountability in law enforcement agencies, similar to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) in the UK, which oversees police conduct and investigates deaths in custody.

To improve the conditions related to custodial death and violence, it is crucial to enhance the formulation, implementation, and monitoring of laws, provide adequate training and sensitize police staff and other officials, and continually adjust laws to meet societal demands.