Custodial violence on women in India is a grave and escalating issue that reflects the urgent need for reforms in law enforcement and criminal jurisprudence. Women in custody often face brutal forms of torture, mistreatment, and sexual abuse, frequently without recourse to justice or legal aid. This endemic problem reveals serious lapses in both preventive mechanisms and accountability frameworks within the Indian criminal justice system.

In 2019, India reported 1,723 custodial deaths, which equates to approximately five deaths each day. The disproportionately high number of custodial deaths in India is deeply troubling and points to widespread issues within the criminal justice system. 

These fatalities frequently involve claims of torture, mistreatment, and denial of essential rights, such as medical care and legal assistance. The lack of accountability for perpetrators of custodial violence further exacerbates this cycle of abuse. 

It is crucial for the government to take immediate and decisive actions to tackle this distressing situation. This should involve implementing efficient strategies to prevent custodial deaths, carrying out prompt and unbiased investigations into all instances of custodial violence, and ensuring accountability for those responsible. 

Additionally, comprehensive criminal justice reforms are necessary to ensure that the system functions in a fair, transparent, and humane manner.

Let us uncover in-depth about custodial violence, shall we?

Statistical Records

According to a report by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India, there were 2,152 deaths reported while in judicial custody and 155 in police custody during the year 2021-22. 

This marks a significant rise compared to previous years and raises serious concerns regarding the state of human rights in the nation. Gujarat has emerged as the state with the highest incidence of custodial deaths, accounting for a substantial share of the total cases. 

The National Campaign Against Torture (NCAT), an independent human rights organization, also published a report concerning custodial deaths in India. Their findings reveal that there were 111 custodial deaths recorded in 2020. 

This figure is particularly alarming considering that the country was under a strict lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which limited movements and reduced interactions between law enforcement officials and the population.

During custody, police frequently resort to various third-degree methods in an attempt to extract confessions and gather evidence from suspects. Even though India has signed the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT), it has yet to ratify this Convention or enact a central law aimed at preventing custodial violence.

Nevertheless, Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees individuals the right to life and personal liberty, highlighting the importance of the “right to live with dignity” and the welfare of every person. Furthermore, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, addresses human rights violations, including custodial torture. 

Despite these legal protections, data on custodial deaths indicates a fundamental breakdown in effectively preventing custodial violence through the proper application of existing laws.

Let us understand more about custodial violence by studying some case laws. 

Landmark cases

Sheela Barse v State of Maharashtra

In the case of Sheela Barse v State of Maharashtra, Sheela Barse, a journalist, wrote a letter narrating incidents of custodial violence against women prisoners in a Mumbai Police Lockup. 

The Supreme Court of India recognised her letter as a writ petition and served notice to the State of Maharashtra, the Superintendent of the Bombay Central Jail, and the Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra. 

To verify the allegations mentioned in the letter, the Court directed Dr. A.R. Desai of the College of Social Work, Nirmala Niketan, Bombay, to visit the Bombay Central Jail and interview the women prisoners there. 

Dr Desai was specifically instructed to speak with the female convicts alone to determine whether the claims made by Sheela Barse were true. The report submitted by Dr. Desai affirmed the facts stated in the letter and provided a detailed account of the problems and difficulties faced by women prisoners. 

It included the specific case of two foreign national women prisoners who had been duped and defrauded by a lawyer. Among the major revelations were the cases of Devamma and Pushpa Paeen, two female inmates who were reportedly abused and tortured while being held in a police cell. 

The Court ensured that Dr. Desai was given the necessary resources by the State Government and the Inspector General of Prisons to carry out this task.

The court issued specific guidelines to ensure the protection of women prisoners in police lock-ups. It directed that four or five police lock-ups in reasonably good localities should be designated exclusively for female suspects, and these lock-ups must be guarded by female constables. 

It also emphasized that female suspects should not be detained in the same lock-ups as male suspects. Furthermore, the court mandated that the interrogation of female detainees must be conducted only in the presence of female police officers or constables. 

In line with these efforts, the Ministry of Home Affairs released the Model Prison Manual in 2016 to standardize prison management and improve the overall conditions of prisoners. In recent years, the government has implemented several measures to address such issues and enhance the protection of prisoners’ rights.

D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal

Prominent cases of custodial violence in India have profoundly influenced the nation’s stance on prisoner rights and law enforcement accountability. 

In the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court established critical guidelines for arrests and detentions to avert custodial deaths and torture, declaring that custodial violence breaches Article 21 (Right to Life). 

This ruling created a strong framework for transparency and accountability, requiring police to adhere to stringent protocols during arrests. 

Similarly, the case of Sheela Barse vs. State of Maharashtra tackled custodial violence against female prisoners, resulting in guidelines that necessitated the presence of female officers for managing female inmates, acknowledging the specific vulnerabilities of women in detention. 

Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration

The Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration ruling asserted that prisoners possess constitutional rights as well, denouncing any inhumane treatment, especially focusing on issues related to torture and mistreatment of death row inmates. 

Ramamurthy vs. the State of Karnataka

The court’s decision in Ramamurthy vs. the State of Karnataka recognized the prevalent inhumane conditions within Indian prisons, mandating reforms such as decongestion, improved healthcare, and enhanced living conditions to maintain prisoners’ dignity. 

R.D. Upadhyay vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

The R.D. Upadhyay vs. State of Andhra Pradesh addressed the challenges faced by pregnant women and children living with incarcerated mothers, establishing standards for their care. 

Collectively, these landmark judgments have highlighted the necessity for humane treatment, accountability in prisons, and the protection of fundamental rights, ensuring the reduction of custodial violence and the preservation of human dignity throughout the criminal justice system.

---

Anshika Agarwal – (3rd year – Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies)