Custodial Violence and Police Accountability in India: A Critical Analysis
Introduction
Custodial violence is one of the darkest stains on India’s democratic fabric, with the very institutions that were established to secure the citizens being used against them. Torture, beatings, and even death are the order of the day in the police lock-ups and judicial custody, usually written off as suicides or natural causes. These silent screams behind bars reveal a deep violation of constitutional commitments undermining the faith of the people in law enforcement and the rule of law. According to official records, by 2016-2022, there were more than 11,650 deaths in custody, 2,739 of which happened in 2024, with 155 of them in the police. Such continuity undermines the extent to which India believes in dignity and justice for everyone.
The crisis is at the core of democracy since it unequally affects the vulnerable and increases inequalities already existing in the divided society based on class, caste, and region. In Uttar Pradesh alone, 2,630 deaths in custody occurred between 2016 and 2022, but recent events in 2025 in Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan serve to highlight the tragedy that continues. The victims are left in unnecessary agony, which exposes a system failure where strong groups exercise power to protect themselves.
The Hidden Reality: Scale and Patterns of Abuse
Custodial violence is a worrying trend in India, with a worrying trend of death and injuries in police and judicial custody, with governmental records showing a crisis of unimaginable sizes. The number of custodial deaths recorded in India between 2016 and 2022 was over 11,650, which is over five deaths a day on average, and this fact contributes to the systemic nature of the issue. In 2024 alone, there were 2,739 such deaths, of which 155 were in police custody, but in 2025 itself, there has been no sign of slowing down, with Uttar Pradesh recording high results despite national trends. The monitoring of the NHRC tells another story that the number of judicial custody deaths and police custody cases observed in 2023-24 is 2,346 and 160, but the conviction rates of these cases are below 2% in the vast majority of states.
Most of the victims of custodial violence are those who represent the most vulnerable part of society, and it is indicative of the socio-economic and caste-based prejudices in policing. This trend is demonstrated by Uttar Pradesh, in which 2,630 deaths in 2016-2022 are disproportionately among Dalits and Muslims in the context of the violent use of the tactic of encounters and regular interrogations. Women and minors are also involved in a heavy burden, and the burden is compounded by the fact that sexual violence in custody is reported. This bias victimization prevents lifelong cycles of exclusion, undermining democratic equality and necessitating some specific actions to guard the helpless.
Guardians of Rights: Constitutional and Legal Safeguards
The Constitution of India is the most significant protector of custodial violence as it entrenches the right to human decency, making the state power secondary to human dignity. Article 21 ensures the right to life and liberty, which is applied liberally by the courts to encompass the right to be free of torture and the right to die with dignity. The clause has been applied in myriad cases to conclude that custodial deaths infringe the procedure established by law, which requires close examination of police practices. It is supplemented by article 20, which suppresses self-incrimination and being subjected to two trials by the same court so that justice will not be marred by coerced confessions. In Article 22, the procedural guarantees of arrests are offered, including production before a magistrate within 24 hours and safeguarding against enforced silence.
The statutory laws provide citizens with the means to fight against custodial abuse, yet the loopholes in their execution spoil their potential. Sections 120 and 35 of the Bharatiya Nyaya BNSS require magisterial inquiries into custodial deaths, a mandatory probe independent of police narratives. The protection of human rights is a serious oversight of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that was created by the Protection of Human Rights Act of 1993. It oversees custodial deaths, provides autopsy and compensation guidelines, and may also suggest prosecutions, as it has done in its suo moto investigations into high-profile cases.
Judicial Warriors: Landmark Battles Against Impunity
The Supreme Court has led reforms on custodial violence by making landmark decisions. In D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal., the court ordered eleven rules: “All the staff of the police shall wear visible name tags” and a memo of arrest, signed by a witness, shall be prepared at the time of arrest. The State is vicariously responsible for paying off the death of victims in custody as under Article 21 . The other ruling involved the installation of CCTVs in police stations, which said, “Transparency through technology will ensure that there is no abuse. Independent Police Complaints Authorities were also put in place by directives. These precedents are hopeful in terms of accountability, but they are slow in their application.
The Bitter Truth: Why Accountability Remains a Mirage
Accountability evades grasp despite judicial mandates. Government sanction under BNSS Section 197 stalls 90% of prosecutions. Police Complaints Authorities ordered in PrakashSingh perform poorly in most states, with less than 10% cases effectively dealt with. The culture of impunity exists with the influence of politics and with the legalization of third-degree practices that give a conviction rate of less than 2%. Legacies of the Colonial Police Act and understaffed investigations keep up this illusion, with power overriding justice for the weak.
Conclusion
The dilemma of custodial violence still hangs on Indian democracy, challenging the constitutional clauses of 20-22 and even the landmark judicial intervention, such as the guidelines of D.K Basu. A culture of impunity is perpetuated by systemic failures – BNSS sanction barriers that hold the majority of prosecutions, the dysfunctional Police Section 197
Complaints Authorities that process less than one in ten cases and a 2% conviction rate that thrives on political interference. Disproportional targeting is most evident with marginalized victims. India must enact a standalone anti-torture law criminalizing custodial brutality with presumptive guilt in deaths, aligned with UN conventions. Mandate body cameras, AI-monitored CCTVs in all stations, and CBI-led independent probes for every case. Fully empower NHRC and State Human Rights Commissions with prosecutorial authority, while implementing Prakash Singh directives for merit-based police leadership and fixed DGP tenures. These reforms have to be motivated by political will to turn police into protectors of rights and not symbols of fear.
Written by Soumya,
Legal Intern at Sandhu Law Offices,
BBA LLB(Hons.), University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU
