Custodial torture is a grave violation of human rights and dignity, undermining the rule of law. Learn how Indian law and international conventions address this inhuman practice.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: In a powerful and precedent-setting ruling, the Kerala High Court recently asserted that police officers accused of custodial torture cannot evade prosecution merely due to the lack of prior government sanction.
The verdict comes in Sudha v. State of Kerala & Ors., a case that has reignited discourse around custodial violence, the abuse of authority by police personnel, and the protection of fundamental rights in India.
Background
Sudha, a woman from a Scheduled Caste community, formerly employed as a housemaid, was accused by her employers of stealing gold sovereigns. Acting on these unverified allegations, the police detained Sudha and subjected her to over three hours of brutal custodial torture. It was only after this traumatic ordeal that the employers admitted the gold was found at home.
Despite the horror she endured, Sudha bravely filed a private complaint before the Magistrate Court. The court found enough merit to proceed against both the employers and the police under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
However, the Sessions Court subsequently discharged all the accused. While the employers were let off due to “lack of prima facie evidence”, the police officers were exonerated solely on the grounds that there was no government sanction as mandated by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a provision meant to protect public servants from frivolous litigation for actions performed as part of their official duty.
Sudha challenged this decision in the High Court, leading to a critical judicial intervention.
Court’s Observation
Justice Kauser Edappagath, while hearing the revision petition, made unequivocal observations that challenge the misuse of Section 197 CrPC.
“The act of custodial torture inflicted by a police officer without justification on an arrestee cannot be shielded under the protective mantle of Section 197 CrPC. It can never be said that a police officer acts or purports to act in discharge of his official duty when he inflicts custodial torture on an arrestee.”
The High Court held that custodial torture, by its very nature, cannot fall under the definition of “official duty.” Therefore, no prior government sanction is required to prosecute the police officers involved in such heinous abuse.
The Court’s ruling carries a strong moral and legal rebuke of custodial violence,
“Custodial torture is perhaps one of the worst kinds of crime in a civilised society governed by the rule of law. Police excesses and maltreatment tarnish the image of any nation and embolden men in uniform to act as if they are above the law.”
The judgment stressed that unless stern legal measures are adopted, the very foundation of the justice system risks being eroded, leading to widespread public distrust.
In light of the medical records and detailed allegations, the High Court found clear evidence of custodial assault. It ruled that,
“There may be circumstances which justify the use of force during the discharge of official duty. But this is not such a case. The custodial assault can never be justified.”
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Sessions Court’s discharge order and directed it to frame charges and proceed with the trial against the implicated police officers.
What is Custodial Torture?
Custodial torture refers to the infliction of physical or mental pain and suffering on an individual who is in the custody of police or other authorities. This practice is a gross violation of human rights and dignity, often leading to custodial deaths, the unnatural demise of a person while in official custody.
These deaths occur under various circumstances, broadly classified into three types: death in police custody, judicial custody, and the custody of armed or paramilitary forces.
Death in police custody typically results from excessive physical force, third-degree torture methods, denial of timely medical care, or other forms of abuse during interrogation or detention. Judicial custody deaths occur in jails or correctional facilities and are often due to poor prison conditions such as overcrowding, lack of hygiene, inadequate medical services, inmate violence, or suicide. Deaths under the custody of the army or paramilitary forces are usually reported during counterinsurgency or conflict operations. They may result from torture, extrajudicial killings, fake encounters, or deaths in crossfire incidents.
In India, custodial deaths have been a recurring concern. According to data from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), 146 cases of death in police custody were reported in 2017–2018, 136 in 2018–2019, 112 in 2019–2020, 100 in 2020–2021, and a sharp rise to 175 in 2021–2022.
Over the past five years, Gujarat recorded the highest number of custodial deaths at 80, followed by Maharashtra with 76, Uttar Pradesh with 41, Tamil Nadu with 40, and Bihar with 38. These figures point to the systemic and widespread nature of the problem.
One of the primary challenges in preventing custodial torture in India is the absence of strong international legal obligations. India signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) in 1997 but has still not ratified it. As a result, India is not legally bound by the convention’s provisions, which impedes the adoption of uniform anti-torture legislation in line with global human rights standards.
Constitutional and Legal Framework Related Custodial Torture
Constitutional Provisions:
The Constitution of India provides robust safeguards to protect individuals from custodial torture and abuse of state power.
Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which encompasses the right to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. This fundamental right ensures that no individual can be subjected to physical or mental abuse while in custody.
Article 20(1) further safeguards individuals by ensuring that no person shall be convicted or punished for any offence unless it is by the law in force at the time of the act, thereby preventing arbitrary or excessive punishment.
Article 20(3) protects against self-incrimination, stating that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves. This is particularly significant in cases where confessions are extracted under duress or through torture.
Legal Protections:
In addition to constitutional protections, several statutory provisions reinforce the legal framework against custodial torture.
Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 renders any confession inadmissible in court if it has been obtained through threat, inducement, or promise by a person in authority. This ensures that coerced confessions, often the product of torture, cannot be relied upon in the judicial process.
Sections 330 and 331 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalize the act of voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort a confession or information, prescribing punishment for such custodial misconduct.
To enhance procedural safeguards, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was amended in 2009 to include Sections 41A to 41D. These amendments introduced vital measures such as the requirement for documented reasons for arrest, transparency of the arrest to family and the public, and the right of the accused to legal representation during interrogation.
International Conventions for Human Rights
International human rights law has firmly established protections against torture and custodial abuse through various landmark instruments.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), a foundational text in international human rights law, explicitly prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. It recognizes the inherent dignity and equal rights of all individuals, including those in custody, thereby laying the groundwork for the protection of detainees’ basic human rights globally.
The United Nations Charter (1945) also upholds these principles by affirming the commitment of member states to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination. It reinforces that even individuals who are detained or imprisoned must be treated with dignity and respect.
Their rights continue to be protected under various international covenants, notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both of which elaborate on the rights to humane treatment, legal redress, and protection from torture.
Further strengthening the international framework, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, commonly known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, were adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015. These rules emphasize the importance of treating all prisoners with inherent dignity and humanity. They strictly prohibit torture, ill-treatment, and any disciplinary measures that amount to cruel treatment.
Case Title: Sudha v. State of Kerala & Ors.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1130 OF 2017
READ ORDER HERE
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
