Legal Protections Against Torture and Coerced Confessions in India
- ByAdmin --
- 13 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
Torture and coerced confessions have long been areas of concern within the Indian criminal justice system. Recognizing the grave threat these practices pose to the right to life, dignity, and fair trial, the Indian Constitution, statutory laws, and judicial precedents provide robust legal safeguards. Recent discussions around custodial violence have reignited the call for stricter enforcement of these protections.
Constitutional and Statutory Framework
- Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes protection against torture and inhuman treatment.
- Article 20(3) ensures that no person accused of an offense shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves, prohibiting forced confessions.
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
- Section 24: Confessions caused by inducement, threat, or promise are inadmissible in court.
- Section 25: Confessions made to a police officer are inadmissible as evidence.
- Section 26: Confessions made while in police custody are inadmissible unless made before a Magistrate.
- Section 24: Confessions caused by inducement, threat, or promise are inadmissible in court.
- Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973:
- Section 164: Confessions must be recorded voluntarily by a Magistrate, with precautions against coercion.
- Section 176: Mandates magisterial inquiry in cases of custodial deaths and alleged torture.
- Section 164: Confessions must be recorded voluntarily by a Magistrate, with precautions against coercion.
- Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993:
Established the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to monitor custodial violence and protect human rights.
Judicial Pronouncements Strengthening Protections
Indian courts have consistently upheld strong safeguards against torture and forced confessions:
- DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997):
The Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines for arrest and detention procedures to prevent custodial torture, including:- Mandatory arrest memos.
- Medical examinations of accused persons.
- Informing family members.
- Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994):
Arrests without justification and detention without communication were deemed violations of Article 21.
- Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010):
The Court ruled that narco-analysis, brain mapping, and polygraph tests conducted without consent violate Article 20(3) and 21.
- Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020):
Directed the installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations and interrogation rooms to prevent custodial torture.
Key Legal Principles Against Torture
- Right Against Self-Incrimination:
A cornerstone of the criminal justice system, rooted in Article 20(3).
- Due Process Requirement:
Any evidence obtained through unlawful means violates the right to a fair trial under Article 21.
- Admissibility of Confessions:
Only voluntary confessions, free from coercion, threat, or inducement, are admissible.
- State Accountability:
Victims of custodial torture have the right to seek compensation under public law remedies, as recognized in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993).
International Law Influence
Although India has signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1997, it has not yet ratified it. Nevertheless, Indian courts often rely on international human rights norms to interpret constitutional rights.
The proposed Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010, intended to criminalize torture, lapsed without enactment. There have been repeated demands to pass a standalone anti-torture legislation.
Challenges in Enforcement
- Weak Implementation:
Despite clear laws and guidelines, enforcement remains inconsistent at the police and administrative levels.
- Lack of Accountability:
Conviction rates in custodial violence cases remain extremely low.
- Delay in Legal Reforms:
India still lacks a specific law criminalizing torture as an offense distinct from general provisions under the Indian Penal Code (Sections 330, 331, etc.).
- Cultural Issues:
The culture of coercive policing persists in several regions despite judicial condemnations.
Conclusion
While the legal framework in India offers strong protections against torture and coerced confessions, gaps in enforcement continue to undermine these rights. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that protection of human dignity and fair trial standards are fundamental to the rule of law. There is an urgent need for stronger oversight mechanisms, specific anti-torture legislation, and police reforms to ensure that constitutional mandates are respected in practice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments