Police Misconduct, Custodial Torture, And Accountability Cases
I. Understanding Police Misconduct and Custodial Torture
1. Police Misconduct
Police misconduct refers to illegal or unethical actions by law enforcement officers, including:
Abuse of power
Fabrication of evidence
Unlawful detention or arrests
Brutality and torture
Extrajudicial killings
Such acts violate Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee equality before law, protection of life and personal liberty, and safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention.
2. Custodial Torture
Custodial torture refers to the physical or psychological harm inflicted on individuals by police or law enforcement officers while in their custody. It includes:
Beatings
Electric shocks
Sexual violence
Threats or humiliation
Despite no specific law criminalizing torture, such acts violate:
Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity)
Section 330 & 331 IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession)
Section 302 IPC (Murder, in case of custodial death)
3. Accountability Mechanisms
To ensure accountability, Indian law provides:
Judicial review (via writs under Articles 32 and 226)
Departmental inquiries and disciplinary action
Compensation for victims (as per judicial precedents)
NHRC (National Human Rights Commission) monitoring
II. Landmark Cases on Police Misconduct and Custodial Torture
Let’s now go through five detailed cases that have shaped Indian law on this issue.
1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Facts:
D.K. Basu, an executive chairman of Legal Aid Services, wrote to the Supreme Court about increasing incidents of custodial deaths and police torture. The letter was treated as a writ petition under Article 32.
Issue:
Whether there should be specific guidelines to prevent custodial torture and deaths.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down 11 mandatory guidelines to be followed during arrest and detention, including:
Police officers must bear identification tags.
Arrest memo must be prepared and signed by a witness.
A friend or relative must be informed of the arrest.
Medical examination every 48 hours.
Arrestee should be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
Significance:
This case is the cornerstone for custodial rights in India. Violation of these guidelines amounts to contempt of court and constitutional breach.
2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746
Facts:
The petitioner’s son, Suman Behera, was taken into police custody and later found dead on a railway track with multiple injuries.
Issue:
Whether the State is liable to pay compensation for custodial death.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the State is vicariously liable for the actions of its police officers when they violate fundamental rights. The Court awarded Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation to the petitioner.
Principle:
The Court distinguished between public law remedy (constitutional compensation) and private law remedy (civil suit for damages). Compensation can be awarded directly under Articles 32 or 226 for violation of Article 21.
3. State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 262
Facts:
A person named Deen Dayal died in police custody. The trial court convicted police officers under Section 302 IPC (murder), but the High Court acquitted them.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court restored the conviction and observed that courts should not adopt a “soft approach” in cases of custodial deaths. It noted that such crimes by police officers “strike at the rule of law.”
Principle:
The case reaffirmed that custodial violence is a crime against humanity and courts must ensure deterrence through strict punishment.
4. Prakash Kadam & Ors. v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta (2011) 6 SCC 189
Facts:
Police officers were accused of conducting a fake encounter killing of two individuals.
Issue:
Whether policemen can be protected under the pretext of “encounter” while killing suspects.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that fake encounters are nothing but cold-blooded murders, and the plea of acting under orders is no defence. Police personnel involved in such acts deserve death penalty in the “rarest of rare” cases.
Principle:
Accountability of police cannot be diluted under the guise of duty; encounters must be justified by law, not by convenience.
5. Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994) 4 SCC 260
Facts:
The petitioner, an advocate, was taken by police without informing his family and kept in illegal detention.
Issue:
Whether police have unfettered power to arrest without justification.
Judgment:
The Court held that arrest should not be routine; police must justify the necessity of arrest. The person has the right to:
Know the grounds of arrest,
Inform a relative or friend,
Be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
Principle:
This case strengthened the personal liberty under Article 21, emphasizing that the power to arrest must be exercised responsibly.
III. Summary of Legal Principles Evolved
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. | Laid down arrest and custody guidelines |
| Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa | State liable for custodial deaths; compensation under Article 21 |
| Shyamsunder Trivedi Case | Custodial death = crime against humanity |
| Prakash Kadam Case | Fake encounters are murder; no immunity for police |
| Joginder Kumar Case | Justification required for arrest; protects personal liberty |
IV. Conclusion
Police misconduct and custodial torture remain serious violations of constitutional rights and human dignity.
The judiciary, through these landmark cases, has:
Strengthened procedural safeguards,
Recognized compensation as a constitutional remedy,
Stressed accountability and deterrence for custodial crimes.
However, despite these legal developments, implementation gaps, delays in justice, and lack of independent oversight mechanisms continue to challenge the system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments