Custodial violence remains a blot on India's criminal justice system despite judicial guidelines. Critically examine the gaps and suggest institutional remedies.

Custodial violence is physical or mental harm done to a person while in police or judicial custody. It directly violates the dignity guaranteed by Article 21. NHRC recorded 155 deaths in police custody and 2,152 in judicial custody in 2021-22 (till 28 February) [1]. Judicial guidelines have set strong norms, but practice still falls short of them.

Existing safeguards: the strengths

• Constitutional shield: Art. 22 requires that a person be told the grounds of arrest and be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. Art. 32 makes habeas corpus available.
• Judicial guidelines: D.K. Basu (1997) requires name tags, an arrest memo and informing a relative. Nilabati Behera (1993) allowed public-law compensation. Paramvir Singh Saini (2020) ordered CCTV in police stations.
• Oversight: states must report custodial deaths to NHRC [1].

Gaps

• Legislative vacuum: torture is not a separate crime in Indian law. India signed UNCAT in 1997 but has not ratified it. The Law Commission's draft Prevention of Torture Bill, 2017 has still not become law [2].
• Safeguards tied to the police station: a 2026 Supreme Court petition alleges that DYFI protesters were held in a sealed, five-cell police van, not a police station, by personnel without name badges [3]. Without a station, there is no record and no CCTV.
• Short detentions escape checks: release on the same day avoids the 24-hour magistrate check.
• Data blind spot: official data counts deaths, not non-fatal beatings [1].
• Police investigating police: the Police Complaints Authorities ordered in Prakash Singh (2006) have been set up unevenly across states. Investigations also still lean on confessions rather than forensics.

Institutional remedies

• Legislate: pass an anti-torture law based on the 2017 draft and ratify UNCAT [2].
• Independent probes: complaints should be investigated by an officer of higher rank than the accused, under an SOP for independent investigation and civilian oversight [4].
• Cover every place of custody: extend D.K. Basu rules, digital custody registers and CCTV to detention vehicles as well.
• Oversight bodies: set up working Police Complaints Authorities in every state and give SHRCs stronger powers.
• Capacity: use forensics-led investigation, train police in human rights, and pay compensation within a fixed time.

Judicial guidelines have defined the problem, but they cannot enforce themselves. A torture law, independent investigation and checks on every place of custody can turn the promise of D.K. Basu into practice. This would uphold Article 21 and SDG 16's call for accountable institutions.