Despite judicial guidelines since *D.K. Basu* (1997), custodial violence persists in India. Analyse the reasons and suggest institutional remedies.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) laid down arrest safeguards such as the arrest memo, informing a relative and periodic medical examination, and the CrPC amendments of 2008–09 wrote them into law. Yet deaths in police custody reported to the NHRC rose from 124 in 2009–10 to 148 in 2017–18 [2][1]. The guidelines exist, but nothing forces the police to follow them.

Reasons for persistence

• Self-certifying safeguards: The arresting officers prepare the arrest memo, the note to the family and the medical record themselves. If they skip these steps, no record exists for anyone to check.
• Oversight tied to buildings: Paramvir Singh Saini (2020) ordered CCTV in police stations and agency offices. Detainees held in vehicles or makeshift sites fall outside that coverage.
• Burden of proof on the victim: The Law Commission's 273rd Report (2017) proposed a presumption that injury in custody is caused by the police [3]. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 left it out [4], so victims must prove assaults that happened where only the police were present.
• No standalone anti-torture law: India signed UNCAT in 1997 but has not ratified it, and the 2010 Prevention of Torture Bill lapsed. Torture is prosecuted only under general hurt and wrongful-confinement provisions.
• Data blind spots: NHRC custody figures count deaths [1]. Torture that victims survive goes largely uncounted.
• Weak accountability culture: The Police Complaints Authorities ordered in Prakash Singh (2006) remain unevenly set up, and investigations still rely heavily on confessions.

Institutional remedies

• Legislative: Enact the Prevention of Torture Bill drafted by the Law Commission and ratify UNCAT [3]. Amend the BSA to add the custodial-injury presumption [4].
• Compensation framework: Set statutory compensation scaled to the nature of the injury and the victim's socio-economic background [3].
• Technology: Extend CCTV and body cameras to police vehicles and every holding site. Since police is a State subject, the States must fund and enforce this.
• Independent oversight: Make Police Complaints Authorities functional, and order mandatory magisterial inquiries into every custodial injury.
• Monitoring: The NHRC should publish a separate count of complaints of non-fatal custodial injury [1].
• Capacity: Expand forensic labs and investigation training to reduce reliance on confessions.

Custodial violence persists because safeguards depend on police compliance, the victim bears the burden of proof, and no dedicated anti-torture law exists. Making torture a specific crime, shifting the burden of proof and keeping every holding site under independent watch would give real effect to the Article 21 guarantee of dignity, in line with SDG 16 on justice and accountable institutions.