<p>‘Custodial torture is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality,’ observed the Supreme Court in D K Basu vs State of West Bengal. </p><p>The recent report of an alleged custodial death in Tumakuru, Karnataka, is a disturbing reflection of systemic failure, raising concerns of a constitutional crisis rather than merely a law-and-order issue. That such an incident has occurred in the home district of the state’s home minister makes it even more unsettling, exposing the gap between responsibility and reality.</p>.<p>In a democratic country like India, which calls itself a welfare state, the Constitution guarantees dignity, liberty, and freedom to every individual. Incidents of custodial torture or death strike at the very idea of justice. While the police are entrusted with maintaining law and order, it is the judiciary that determines guilt or innocence. The police have no authority to take life or subject a person to inhumane treatment. Such acts mock the justice system. When those tasked with enforcing the law violate it, a troubling question arises: are we drifting from a welfare state to a police state?</p>.<p>Despite staggering figures of custodial torture and deaths, convictions of police personnel remain rare. The persistence of custodial violence, despite repeated exposure, is deeply troubling. One reason is the enduring colonial policing mindset, where coercion is seen as a legitimate investigative tool rather than an illegal act. Pressure to solve cases quickly only aggravates the problem. Shortcuts become routine, and human rights are treated as hindrances rather than guiding principles.</p>.<p>The judiciary has consistently taken a strong stand against custodial violence and laid down safeguards. In D K Basu vs State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court prescribed detailed procedures for arrest and detention. In Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa, it recognised compensation for victims of custodial death, affirming State accountability. In Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh, it directed the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations to ensure transparency. However, compliance on the ground remains weak, exposing serious administrative failures.</p>.<p>Legally, India does have a framework to protect individuals from custodial torture. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, now expanded to include the right to live with dignity and freedom from torture. Article 20(3) protects against self-incrimination, while Article 22 ensures safeguards during arrest and detention. Together, these provisions make it clear that no person can be subjected to inhuman treatment by the State. The problem lies not in the absence of law, but in its ineffective implementation. </p>.<p>Though India signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture (1997), it remains unratified. This prolonged inaction shows a lack of commitment to criminalising custodial violence in line with international standards. Many countries have enacted specific anti-torture laws and established independent monitoring mechanisms. India, by contrast, continues to rely on general provisions that are inadequate to meet the scale of the problem.</p>.<p>Custodial torture is a direct assault on constitutional morality, not merely a legal violation. The Constitution envisions a welfare state that prioritises dignity and well-being. When authority is exercised without accountability, it erodes public trust and makes democracy weaker. Accountability must be strict and uncompromising; it must extend to all officers directly or indirectly involved, including senior police officials.</p>.<p>What is needed is not condemnation, but structural reform. Long-pending police reforms, recommended by committees and the Supreme Court, must be implemented in letter and spirit. India needs a dedicated anti-torture law that clearly defines and penalises custodial violence. Police personnel must be equipped with scientific and rights-based investigation techniques so that coercion or force is eliminated. Importantly, technological measures such as CCTV must be fully operational and monitored to ensure transparency. </p>.<p> The Preamble promises justice, liberty, equality, and dignity to every individual – these are not merely words but a promise by the State. India is, and must remain, a welfare state, not a police state. Incidents like custodial torture are a direct threat to the rule of law itself. </p>.<p><em>(The writer is an advocate based in Bengaluru and is the author of Legal Personalities: Life & Lessons)</em> </p>
<p>‘Custodial torture is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality,’ observed the Supreme Court in D K Basu vs State of West Bengal. </p><p>The recent report of an alleged custodial death in Tumakuru, Karnataka, is a disturbing reflection of systemic failure, raising concerns of a constitutional crisis rather than merely a law-and-order issue. That such an incident has occurred in the home district of the state’s home minister makes it even more unsettling, exposing the gap between responsibility and reality.</p>.<p>In a democratic country like India, which calls itself a welfare state, the Constitution guarantees dignity, liberty, and freedom to every individual. Incidents of custodial torture or death strike at the very idea of justice. While the police are entrusted with maintaining law and order, it is the judiciary that determines guilt or innocence. The police have no authority to take life or subject a person to inhumane treatment. Such acts mock the justice system. When those tasked with enforcing the law violate it, a troubling question arises: are we drifting from a welfare state to a police state?</p>.<p>Despite staggering figures of custodial torture and deaths, convictions of police personnel remain rare. The persistence of custodial violence, despite repeated exposure, is deeply troubling. One reason is the enduring colonial policing mindset, where coercion is seen as a legitimate investigative tool rather than an illegal act. Pressure to solve cases quickly only aggravates the problem. Shortcuts become routine, and human rights are treated as hindrances rather than guiding principles.</p>.<p>The judiciary has consistently taken a strong stand against custodial violence and laid down safeguards. In D K Basu vs State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court prescribed detailed procedures for arrest and detention. In Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa, it recognised compensation for victims of custodial death, affirming State accountability. In Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh, it directed the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations to ensure transparency. However, compliance on the ground remains weak, exposing serious administrative failures.</p>.<p>Legally, India does have a framework to protect individuals from custodial torture. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, now expanded to include the right to live with dignity and freedom from torture. Article 20(3) protects against self-incrimination, while Article 22 ensures safeguards during arrest and detention. Together, these provisions make it clear that no person can be subjected to inhuman treatment by the State. The problem lies not in the absence of law, but in its ineffective implementation. </p>.<p>Though India signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture (1997), it remains unratified. This prolonged inaction shows a lack of commitment to criminalising custodial violence in line with international standards. Many countries have enacted specific anti-torture laws and established independent monitoring mechanisms. India, by contrast, continues to rely on general provisions that are inadequate to meet the scale of the problem.</p>.<p>Custodial torture is a direct assault on constitutional morality, not merely a legal violation. The Constitution envisions a welfare state that prioritises dignity and well-being. When authority is exercised without accountability, it erodes public trust and makes democracy weaker. Accountability must be strict and uncompromising; it must extend to all officers directly or indirectly involved, including senior police officials.</p>.<p>What is needed is not condemnation, but structural reform. Long-pending police reforms, recommended by committees and the Supreme Court, must be implemented in letter and spirit. India needs a dedicated anti-torture law that clearly defines and penalises custodial violence. Police personnel must be equipped with scientific and rights-based investigation techniques so that coercion or force is eliminated. Importantly, technological measures such as CCTV must be fully operational and monitored to ensure transparency. </p>.<p> The Preamble promises justice, liberty, equality, and dignity to every individual – these are not merely words but a promise by the State. India is, and must remain, a welfare state, not a police state. Incidents like custodial torture are a direct threat to the rule of law itself. </p>.<p><em>(The writer is an advocate based in Bengaluru and is the author of Legal Personalities: Life & Lessons)</em> </p>
