How Custodial Violence and Police Accountability Work in India

India records approximately 1,700 deaths in custody annually (NCRB data) across police custody and judicial custody (prison); this figure, while itself alarming, is widely believed to be an undercount — deaths that occur shortly after release from custody, deaths attributed to "illness" without adequate investigation, and deaths in informal detention are not systematically captured. 

The DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1996) Supreme Court guidelines — now incorporated into the BNSS — established the foundational legal framework for arrest and custody procedure: police officers must wear visible identification badges; a memo of arrest must be prepared and witnessed by a family member or local respectable person; the time and place of arrest must be communicated to a nominated person within 8–12 hours; the arrested person must be subjected to medical examination every 48 hours; and CCTV installation in all police stations and lockups was directed by the NHRC in 2021.

Representational Image: How Custodial Violence and Police Accountability Work in India

The gap between the DK Basu framework and actual custodial practice is significant and documented. The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), the NHRC, and international human rights organisations consistently document: torture during interrogation (beatings, sleep deprivation, stress positions, electric shock); denial of food and water during early custody; refusal of medical examination; and failure to notify family members. 

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has repeatedly requested India-visit access; the government has not granted a visit. The UN Committee Against Torture (UNCAT) — to which India is not a party; India has signed but not ratified the Convention Against Torture — cannot examine India's record directly.

What You Need to Know

• Custodial deaths: approximately 1,700 annually (NCRB); judicial custody deaths significantly exceed police custody deaths in absolute numbers (due to prison population scale); custodial death investigations required by Supreme Court and NHRC; NHRC compensation orders to families are documented in hundreds of cases annually.
• DK Basu guidelines (now BNSS): arrest memo requirement; family notification within 8–12 hours; medical examination every 48 hours; visible ID badges for arresting officers; presence of legal aid lawyer from first production before magistrate; violation consequences: contempt of court and departmental action (rarely invoked in practice).
• NHRC role: National Human Rights Commission receives custodial violence complaints; conducts spot inquiries through state NHRC teams; recommends compensation; issues show-cause notices to state governments; as of 2025 the NHRC's reaccreditation has been twice deferred by GANHRI for alleged inadequate independence — including criticism that NHRC uses police in investigations of police misconduct.
• CCTV requirement: NHRC 2021 directive and Supreme Court orders require installation of CCTV cameras with night vision capability in all police stations, cells, and lockups; a 2024 Supreme Court follow-up examination found implementation to be partial; CCTV cameras installed but not always functioning; recordings not preserved for required periods; the accountability effect of CCTV is limited where implementation is incomplete.
• Fake encounter killings: police encounters (alleged armed confrontations where suspects are killed) include both genuine self-defence situations and documented "fake encounters" (staged killings of suspects); Manipur encounter case (2016 Supreme Court order for CBI investigation); UP "encounter" policy under Yogi Adityanath government has been both praised (reduced organised crime) and criticised (extrajudicial killings) — UP police recorded 10,000+ encounters between 2017 and 2022.

How It Works in Practice

1. The interrogation-evidence problem: India's criminal procedure does not generally allow confessions made to police as evidence in court (Section 25 of the old Evidence Act, now BSA Section 23); this provision — designed to prevent torture-extracted confessions — was supposed to reduce custodial torture by eliminating its evidential value. In practice, torture continues for reasons including: extracting information about criminal networks (operational rather than evidential purpose); coercing accused into not filing complaints; punishing individuals for perceived disrespect; and community-level vigilantism by police.

2. The BSA's joint statement provision: The BSA (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) introduced a new provision allowing a "joint statement" made by two accused persons in the presence of a magistrate to be admissible against both; this partially extends the previously prohibited police custody confession framework; civil liberties advocates argue this creates incentives for custodial pressure to produce co-accused admissions.

3. The accountability gap at police station level: NHRC compensation orders (typically ₹2–5 lakh for custodial deaths) are paid by state governments without personal liability falling on the officers responsible; departmental inquiry results in minor penalties or are not completed; criminal prosecution of police officers for custodial violence requires government prosecution sanction (similar to UAPA prosecution sanction for public servants) — which is rarely granted for cases involving police; the result is systematic impunity.

4. Encounter killing debates: The UP government's "encounter" approach — in which police killed 180 people in alleged encounters in the first year of the Adityanath government — reflects a broader debate about extrajudicial enforcement as a crime control method; proponents cite reduced organised crime and improved business confidence; critics cite documented cases where killed individuals had no criminal background, where forensic evidence suggests staged encounters, and where the approach represents systematic extrajudicial punishment. The Supreme Court's Anwar Ali Sarkar direction (2016) on encounter killings requires mandatory judicial inquiry for all cases.

5. Women and custodial violence: BNSS contains specific provisions protecting women from certain custodial risks: women cannot be arrested after sunset or before sunrise except with magistrate permission; women must be examined by female medical officer; a female officer must be present when a woman is interrogated. These provisions address specific patterns of gender-based custodial abuse; their implementation depends on whether female police officers are available (constabulary is approximately 11% female nationally).

What People Often Misunderstand

• NHRC compensation orders are not criminal convictions: When NHRC orders the state to pay ₹3 lakh to a custodial death victim's family, this is administrative compensation — not a criminal conviction of the officer; the officer may continue in service; no prosecution results automatically; the compensation acknowledges the violation without creating personal accountability for perpetrators.
• The government has ratified the UN Convention Against Torture: India's status with UNCAT is nuanced — India signed the Convention in 1997 but has not ratified it (which would create binding obligations and allow the Committee Against Torture to examine India's record); the non-ratification is a deliberate policy choice that limits international accountability for custodial violence.
• CCTV cameras in police stations have genuine protective potential: In stations where CCTV is functioning and recordings are preserved, custodial abuse is significantly more difficult to conduct without evidence; the problem is incomplete installation, cameras pointed away from detention areas, and recording systems that malfunction or whose footage is deleted; the potential is not being realised due to implementation failures.
• "Encounter" killings range from genuine self-defence to extrajudicial execution: The category encompasses both: genuine situations where armed suspects fire at police and are killed; and staged killings of suspects who are shot after being taken into custody; the documentary record for specific cases requires case-by-case investigation; blanket condemnation conflates genuine and fake encounters, and blanket endorsement ignores documented staging.
• Custodial violence affects all communities but disproportionately impacts the most marginalised: Muslims, Dalits, Adivasis, and the very poor are statistically more likely to experience custodial abuse because they are more likely to be arrested for offences, less likely to have influential connections that provide protection, and less likely to have the resources and knowledge to complain effectively.

What Changes Over Time

The NHRC's reaccreditation review (2025 GANHRI SCA assessment) will determine whether India's national human rights institution maintains its international "A" status; a downgrade would have reputational consequences and affect India's participation in UN human rights forums. 

The Supreme Court's monitoring of CCTV installation across states — directed in multiple orders — continues to produce state compliance reports and judicial follow-up that gradually increases camera coverage.

Sources and Further Reading

• PRS — Police reforms: https://prsindia.org/policy/analytical-reports/police-reforms-india
• Wikipedia — Indian Police Service: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Police_Service
• CIVICUS Monitor — India: https://monitor.civicus.org
• Drishti IAS — Revamping police: https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-editorials/revamping-india-s-police-system
• Bar and Bench — UAPA and detention: https://www.barandbench.com/columns/when-arrest-becomes-the-burden-what-parliaments-uapa-data-really-tells-us

(This series is part of a long-term editorial project to explain the structures, institutions, policies, and governing frameworks that shape modern India for a global audience. Designed as a 25-article briefing cluster on Policing, Crime & Justice, this vertical examines how India's criminal justice system functions in practice — from policing and criminal investigation to prosecution, courts, prisons, forensic systems, cybercrime enforcement, drug control, custodial accountability, victims' rights, and the treatment of foreign nationals within the justice system. The series explores not only the formal legal architecture established by the Constitution, statutes, and judicial precedents, but also the practical realities of enforcement, institutional capacity, procedural safeguards, systemic delays, and ongoing reform efforts. Written in an accessible format for diplomats, investors, researchers, academics, journalists, policymakers, students, civil society organisations, and international observers, these briefings seek to explain how law, order, accountability, and justice operate in the world's largest democracy. Particular attention is given to the interaction between individual rights and state power, the evolution of India's criminal laws, emerging challenges such as cybercrime and transnational crime, and the institutional constraints that continue to shape outcomes across the justice system. This is Vertical 10 of a larger 20-vertical knowledge architecture being developed by IndianRepublic.in under the editorial direction of Saket Suman. All articles are protected under applicable copyright laws. All Rights Reserved.)