"Custodial safeguards in India are rich in law but poor in practice." Discuss with reference to recent judicial observations on unlawful detention.

In November 2026, the Allahabad High Court called the state of civil liberty in Uttar Pradesh "shameful". It said rights violations had become "a matter of routine for the U.P. Police" [1]. The remark captures India's paradox: strong safeguards on paper that often fail at the police-station door.

Rich in law

• Constitution: Art. 21 requires a "just, fair and reasonable" procedure (Maneka Gandhi). Art. 22 guarantees the grounds of arrest, a lawyer, and production before a magistrate within 24 hours.
• Statute: BNSS, 2023 provides for grounds of arrest (S.47), informing a relative (S.48) and no detention beyond 24 hours (S.58).
• Judicial guidelines: D.K. Basu (1997) arrest memo; Paramvir Singh Saini (2020) CCTV in all police stations; Nilabati Behera compensation.
• Remedy: habeas corpus under Arts. 32 and 226.

Poor in practice: recent judicial observations

• Off-record detention: In Bijnor, plain-clothes police allegedly picked up a man on 5 September but recorded his arrest only on 7 September. This sidestepped the 24-hour rule [1].
• The "malfunction" defence: The State said CCTV footage was unavailable because of a malfunction. The HC rejected this, ordered the man's release and imposed ₹20,000 costs [1].
• Wider non-compliance: In 2024 the Supreme Court found its CCTV order was not followed "in letter and spirit". Yet it left the matter to departmental action [3].
• Outcomes: U.P. recorded 448 judicial-custody deaths in 2021-22, the highest in India [2].

Why the gap persists

• No anti-torture law: The 2010 Bill lapsed. It had a six-month limit for complaints and needed government sanction to prosecute [5]. The draft in the Law Commission's 273rd Report (2017) has still not been enacted [4].
• Weak oversight: Police is a State subject, so the Police Complaints Authorities ordered in Prakash Singh (2006) depend on uneven State action [6].

Way forward

• Treat missing CCTV footage as a presumption against the State.
• Enact an anti-torture law based on the Law Commission draft, and ratify UNCAT [4].
• Give Police Complaints Authorities a statutory base and suo motu powers [6]. Adopt tamper-proof digital arrest registers.

The gap lies in enforcement, not in the law. Independent oversight, technology-backed accountability and an anti-torture law can turn Article 21 from a promise into practice. This would serve SDG 16's goal of accountable institutions.