Custodial Violence and Role of Judiciary in Safeguarding Human Rights

Custodial violence is one of the most serious violations of human dignity and the law. It implies any kind of physical or mental maltreatment suffered by persons in the custody of the law enforcement agencies, be it police, judicial, or prison establishments. Torture, ill-treatment, sexual abuse, and even death are all encompassed within it. In spite of constitutional protection and international obligations, custodial violence is a continuing and alarming phenomenon in most parts of the globe, including India. The Genesis of Custodial Violence The genesis of custodial violence is multi-dimensional, often based on a cluster of systemic failures as well as random excesses by individuals.

A few of the foremost contributing factors are: Failure to Hold Anyone Accountable: A wide culture of impunity tends to protect abusers from real punishment, leading to more abuses. Internal investigations by the departments are often accused of ineffectiveness and being biased.

Force to Deliver: Police forces, under tremendous pressure to crack cases and elicit confessions, tend to use unlawful and inhumane tactics to obtain information, transcending due process. Insufficient Training and Sensitization: Police officers are often not adequately trained in contemporary investigative methods and human rights standards, and thus fall back on primitive and abusive measures.

Overcrowding and Unhygienic Conditions in Prisons and Police Lock-ups: Under conditions of poor living standards, neglect of medical care, and overcrowding in police lock-ups and prisons, the climate is conducive to abuse and neglect.

Deficient Legal Framework (Historically): Despite having many laws, there has been a long-standing appeal for a clear, all-encompassing law on torture according to international treaties. Recent legislation such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) criminalizes some actions, but an exclusive anti-torture law is continued to be urged.

Power Imbalance: The very nature of power imbalance between the custodian and the detainee renders the latter very susceptible to exploitation. Human Rights Violation in its Essence Violence in custody is a gross violation of basic human rights incorporated in national constitutions as well as international treaties. In India, it attacks at the very essence of:

Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): This fundamental pillar of the Indian Constitution ensures that no individual shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except as provided by procedure established by law. Custodial death and torture are a blatant violation of this right.

Article 20(3) (Protection against Self-Incrimination): Torture for the purpose of eliciting confessions is a blatant violation of the right against self-incrimination. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Article 5 of the UDHR declares, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Article 7 of the ICCPR, to which India is a signatory, categorically prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Though India signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1997, it has not ratified it through domestic law, a source of ongoing campaigning by human rights groups. The Role of Judiciary in Safeguarding Human Rights The Indian judiciary has acted as the savior, taking a decisive and proactive stand against custodial violence and protection of human rights where the legislature and executive have failed. Through judicial activism and landmark judgments, the Supreme Court and High Courts have established vital guidelines, imposed accountability, and delivered redressal to victims.

Major Judicial Interventions and Landmark Cases

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997): This is perhaps the most important judgment regarding custodial violence. Acting on alarming reports of custodial torture and death, the Supreme Court established exhaustive guidelines that the police and other agencies have to follow at the time of arrest and detention. These are: The arresting police officer has to wear conspicuous identification. A memo of arrest should be drawn up at the time of arrest and signed by a minimum of one witness. The right of the arrested individual to notify a friend or relative of his or her arrest exists. The arrested individual should be examined medically by a professional doctor every 48 hours while in custody. The arrested individual should be presented before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. These guidelines, popularly known as "D.K. Basu guidelines," are designed to infuse an element of openness and accountability into the process of arrest so that abuse is minimized.

 Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993): In this landmark custodial death case, the Supreme Court formulated the doctrine of "strict liability" for the state in instances of custodial violence. According to it, the state is liable to compensate for the violation of fundamental rights, irrespective of whether the individual officers are prosecuted or not. This decision was a major turnabout in judicial thinking, acknowledging compensation as a public law remedy for constitutional torts.

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978 and 1980): The cases, decided in two parts, involved the human rights of prisoners. The Supreme Court came down heavily on inhuman treatment and torture in prisons. In Sunil Batra (I),the Court suo motu cognizance of a letter regarding torture of a prisoner, laying stress that prisoners also have their basic rights. In Sunil Batra (II),the Court gave guidelines on the powers of jail authorities, laying stress that solitary confinement and handcuffing should not be resorted to routinely and only in strict necessity.

Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983): This was an antecedent to the contemporary compensatory jurisprudence for human rights abuses.The Supreme Court granted compensation for unlawful detention, invoking its jurisdiction to award monetary compensation for the denial of fundamental rights. This led to the following judgments on custodial violence compensation. * Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980): The Supreme Court disapproved the use of handcuffs and chains indiscriminately and termed it "prima facie inhuman, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 21." It set down guidelines that handcuffing must be an exception, not a rule, and involves judicial permission specifically.

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014): Perturbed over the widespread abuse of the arrest power of arrest, especially in cases where the maximum punishment is up to seven years, the Supreme Court issued strict guidelines for police officers before making an arrest. It mandated that police must provide reasons for arrest and that magistrates must ensure compliance with these reasons before authorizing detention, thereby preventing arbitrary arrests that can lead to custodial violence.

Challenges and the Path Forward

Despite the judiciary's robust interventions, custodial violence persists. The challenges are significant:

 Implementation Gap: The biggest hurdle remains the effective implementation of judicial guidelines and pronouncements on the ground.

 Lack of Independent Oversight: The absence of a truly independent mechanism for investigating complaints against police and prison officials often hinders accountability.

 Political Will and Police Reforms: Comprehensive police reforms, including improved training, better infrastructure, and insulation from political interference, are crucial but have been slow to materialize.

 Victim and Witness Protection: Victims and witnesses of custodial violence often face intimidation, making it difficult for them to pursue justice.

 Non-ratification of UNCAT: India's failure to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture and enact a specific anti-torture law remains a significant gap in its legal framework.

Conclusion

The Indian judiciary has acted as a crucial bulwark against custodial violence, consistently reaffirming the sanctity of human rights even within the confines of custody. Through landmark judgments, it has not only condemned such abuses but also laid down concrete guidelines and established principles of state accountability and compensation. However, the fight against custodial violence is far from over. It requires a multi-pronged approach involving legislative reforms, effective implementation of existing laws, strengthening of oversight mechanisms, police sensitization, and a societal commitment to upholding human dignity at all costs. Only then can the constitutional promise of "life and liberty" truly extend to every individual, irrespective of their status as a detainee.

By Anurag Pratap Singh

3^rd year BBALLB

Noida International University