DECCAN INQUIRER
e news bi-weekly
EDITOR: NAGARAJA.M.R ....
VOL.22 .. .ISSUE...18……01/03/2026
World Organization Against Torture flags India as “high risk” country for police torture: Some reflections
On the UN’s International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, we reflect on a recent report by a global alliance of anti-torture organisations which scored India as ‘high risk’ overall. Between India’s refusal to ratify the Convention Against Torture and the downgrading of the NHRC, the country is facing a critical moment in its human rights stature.
THIS YEAR HAS PROVEN TO BE A SOBERING ONE for the Indian police with several reports revealing their unconstitutional and torturous attitude. The Status of Policing in India report 2025 put forth an alarming data about the police officers' stand on torture. As per the report, majority of the police officers justify and admit to using torture as a means during interrogation and investigation. The India Justice Report 2025 cited many problems in policing from overcrowded prisons to lack of women police officers and the sad state of judiciary.
The very recent report by the Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute has revealed systemic reprisal against journalists by the Indian state machinery through illegal detentions, false allegations and other similar means of harassment. At this juncture comes the Global Torture Index 2025 by the World Organisation Against Torture which has placed India in the high risk category on analysing various variables of torture by police in India.
What does the Report say?
World Organization Against Torture (‘OMCT’), a leader in the global anti-torture movement with 200+ partner organisations across the globe, has come up with this ground breaking index. People’s Watch, a non-governmental organisation from India working on torture collaborated with the OMCT to bring the Index on India.
The report has analysed twenty six countries initially under seven thematic areas including political commitment against torture, ending police brutality and institutional violence, freedom from torture while deprived of liberty, ending impunity, victim's rights, protection for all, and right to defend and civic space. All the seven themes were analysed and scored on five different risk levels ranging from low risk to very high risk. What is saddening is that the index has scored India as a high risk country overall and in all the seven themes except for one - the political commitment with considerable risk.
The very recent report by the Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute has revealed systemic reprisal against journalists by the Indian state machinery through illegal detentions, false allegations and other similar means of harassment.
The Index Factsheet brings attention to a few infamous cases in India from the death of G.N.Saibaba who spent ten years in prison without proper facilities despite being 90 percent disabled, to the detention without trial of Khurram Parvez, an activist from Kashmir. The report unapologetically throws light on the condition of India indicating an urgent need for attention. Launched during the 59th Human Rights council meeting currently underway in Geneva, it draws international attention to festering wounds of our criminal justice system.
What RTI data reveals about custodial torture, lack of CCTV facilities in Tamil Nadu’s police stations
It notes that India has not yet ratified the UN Convention Against Torture (‘CAT’), the optional protocol and the second optional protocol, echoing the cry that has been lingering for years by various activists and civil society organisations. Not ratifying the convention provides an easy means for the perpetrators to go scot-free.
Henri Tiphagne, the Executive Director of People's Watch, addressing the International Press Conference in Geneva pointed out the lack of successful prosecution of even a single police officer till date, despite India having the highest number of human rights institutions in any country - 169 in total (including both national human rights and state human rights institutions, such as the NHRC, NCW, NCPCR, Minorities Commission etc.).
The failure of human rights institutions in India
The report captures some of the visible signs of the downfall of the human rights institutions in India. The NHRC that has reported 2,400 cases of custodial deaths in 2023, has reported 2,739 cases on the same in 2024. This visible increase points to the degrading condition of prisoners in the country.
The report also observes 195 unnatural deaths in judicial custody in 2022, among the total deaths of 1,995 prisoners. The lack of support mechanisms for victims in terms of psychological or medical care and the access to Justice, with less than 25 percent receiving financial reparations and the compensations being rare and inadequate in most cases has been highlighted.
Despite the Supreme Court order in Paramvir Singh v.Baljit Singh (2020) on installation of CCTVs in police stations, 2,701 police stations lack one, according to the report.
The lack of law exclusively for victims of torture leaves victims at jeopardy, highly limiting their access to justice. The theme "Protection for All" in the index lays bare the decreased protection for the lives of women and children in the country, with courts further intimidating victims through victim blaming, in cases of sexual abuse, and "placing an unreasonably heavy burden of proof on the survivors", and child marriage and bonded labour still rising among children. The violence in Manipur with the state security forces having killed 260 people and the displacement of 60,000 people also finds its place in the report.
The Index also highlights the lack of transparency of data on torture and ill treatment and categorises India under "concealed" which is close to the level of "suppressive", the dangerous one on the scale. The lack of data on torture is again an indicator on the state of affairs in the country. Despite the Supreme Court order in Paramvir Singh v.Baljit Singh (2020) on installation of CCTVs in police stations, 2,701 police stations lack one, according to the report. Concomitantly, several recent RTI data in India expose alarming truths about CCTVs in police and injuries of suspects before entering prisons.
The index also recalls Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions' (‘GANHRI’) recommendation in the 45th session in March to downgrade NHRC of India from its A status to B. The cases of human rights defenders who "frequently face judicial harassment, arbitrary detention and trumped-up charges" , and the torture meted out to Adivasis resulted in this largest democracy being placed as a high risk country.
What has the government and the judiciary done so far?
The government’s hesitance to combat torture is evident from the fact that it promised ratification far back in 1997 but still has not walked the talk. Exactly 25 years ago on the International Day against Torture (June 26, 2000), the then NHRC Chair Justice J.S. Verma again urged the government to ratify the same.
Till today, the government has not done it by giving doltish replies to anyone who questions it in the parliament. A torture bill that was placed before the parliament also did not materialise into a law. In 2019, when a former union law minister Ashwini Kumar Singh approached regarding this, the court asked the states and Union territories for their response on The Prevention of Torture Bill 2017 but to no avail.
The Supreme Court also ended up dismissing the petition saying that it is a police decision. This is truly unbecoming of a constitutional court which is the only safeguard against state abuse in this constitutional democracy. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has observed in the D.K. Basu v. The State of West Bengal (1996) that custodial torture is "a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality. It is a calculated assault on human dignity".
The way forward
"The Global Torture Index is a barometer of the resilience of the rule of law in times of growing authoritarianism, polarization and inequality. It observes how fair, healthy and safe our societies are", highlights Gerald Staberack the Secretary General of OMCT.
India’s continued refusal to ratify U.N. Convention Against Torture lacks substance
The index gave out seven major recommendations including the ratification of UN Convention Against Torture, stopping the use of anti-terrorism laws against the likes of human rights defenders who peacefully carry out their activities, adhering to the United Nations basic principles on use of force and firearms in managing mass assemblies, conducting thorough investigations into the deaths during police and judicial custody in line with the protocols, and amending the Protection of Human Rights Act, 2019 by integrating the recommendations of GANHRI. If only the government removes its blindfold and acts upon these suggestions, we will all be free from this undeclared emergency.
Custodial Torture in India
The custodial death in Tamil Nadu has once again brought the issue of custodial torture into the spotlight.
What is Custodial Torture?
About: Custodial torture refers to the infliction of physical or mental suffering on individuals held in police or other authorities.
It represents a serious violation of human rights and dignity and frequently results in custodial deaths—fatalities that occur while a person is under custody.
Types of Custodial Torture:
Physical Torture: Beatings, electric shocks, suffocation, sexual violence, forced stress positions, and denial of medical care.
Psychological Torture: Threats, humiliation, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, and mock executions.
Coercing detainees into admitting crimes through extreme duress.
Custodial Torture in India:
Custodial Deaths: Between 2016 and 2022, Tamil Nadu (highest among southern states) reported 490 custodial deaths, while the national total stood at 11,656. Uttar Pradesh recorded the highest number with 2,630 deaths.
Abuse of Preventive Detention Law: In 2022, Tamil Nadu detained 2,129 people under preventive laws, accounting for half of India’s total.
Scheduled Castes (SCs) faced disproportionate custodial violence, making up 38.5% of detainees despite being only 20% of the population in Tamil Nadu.
What are the Constitutional and Legal Safeguards in Place Against Custodial Torture?
Constitutional Provisions
Article 14: Article 14 ensures equality before the law, affirming that no one, including law enforcement agencies or officials, is above the law.
Article 21: Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 20(1): Article 20(1) states that no person can be convicted for an act that was not an offence under the law at the time it was committed, thereby prohibiting excessive or retrospective punishment.
Article 20(3): Article 20(3) protects an individual from being compelled to self-incriminate, safeguarding the accused from coerced or forced confessions through torture or pressure.
Legal Provisions
Section 120 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023): It penalizes those who intentionally cause hurt or grievous hurt to extract confessions, information, through violence or coercion.
Section 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS, 2023): It mandates that arrests and detentions follow valid reasons, documented procedures.
Section 22 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (2023): It invalidates confessions made under inducement, threat, coercion, or promise.
International Provisions
United Nation Charter, 1945: It mandates that prisoners be treated with dignity, affirming that their fundamental rights and freedoms remain protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR-India is a signatory).
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): It protects individuals from torture, cruel treatment, and enforced disappearances, ensuring the right to dignity and security.
What are the Challenges in Curbing Custodial Torture?
Lack of Specific Anti-Torture Legislation: India signed the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1997 but has not yet ratified it.
While torture is indirectly addressed in laws like the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, there is no standalone law criminalizing it, making existing provisions vague, inadequate, and lacking stringent penalties.
Weak Enforcement & Impunity: Between 2017 and 2022, out of 345 judicial inquiries into custodial deaths, there were 123 arrests and 79 chargesheets, but zero convictions.
In 74 human rights violation cases involving illegal detention, torture, or deaths, only 3 convictions were recorded against the police.
Overburdened Institutions: Human Rights Commissions (NHRC/SHRCs) lack binding powers and depend on government funding, limiting their effectiveness.
Prison overcrowding (at 130% capacity) and lack of independent oversight—with no effective police complaints authority in many states—create conditions that facilitate abuse and inhuman treatment.
Fear of Reprisal Among Victims: Victims often refrain from reporting torture due to fear of retaliation, lack of legal aid, and threats when filing complaints.
Marginalized groups (Dalits, minorities, tribals) are especially vulnerable due to inadequate victim protection and compensation mechanisms.
Judicial and Systemic Failures: Lengthy judicial proceedings, compounded by overburdened courts, witness intimidation, and inadequate fast-track courts, delay justice in custodial death cases.
Additionally, poor compliance with the D.K. Basu Guidelines (1996)—mandating arrest memos, medical exams, and legal access, along with ineffective magisterial inquiries, reflects a systemic failure and a lack of political will to enforce accountability or reform policing practices.
Key Recommendations to Prevent Custodial Torture
Law Commission of India: In its 273rd Report (2017), the Law Commission of India recommended ratification of UNCAT 1984, and enact a specific law to implement its provisions, highlighting the urgent need to criminalize torture.
The Commission also submitted a draft Prevention of Torture Bill, 2017 for the government's consideration.
Judicial Ruling:
DK Basu vs State of West Bengal Case, 1997: It laid down guidelines to prevent custodial torture and promote transparency in arrests and detentions.
It affirmed that while police have the right to investigate, they are prohibited from using third-degree methods, and in cases of custodial violence by public servants, the State is also held accountable.
State of Uttar Pradesh vs Ram Sagar Yadav Case, 1985: In incidents of custodial torture, the responsibility to prove innocence rests with the concerned police officer.
Nambi Narayanan Case, 2018: It emphasized the severe psychological impact resulting from wrongful prosecution and custodial abuse.
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC): The NHRC recommended that District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police must report any incidents of custodial torture to the Secretary General within 24 hours.
Failure to comply may be viewed as an attempt to conceal or suppress the incident.
What Measures can be taken to Address Custodial Torture in India?
Strengthen Legal Framework: Enact a comprehensive Prevention of Torture law with clear punitive provisions and victim compensation, in alignment with UNCAT standards.
India should also ratify UNCAT to reinforce its international commitment to ending torture.
Ensure Institutional Accountability: Take swift and transparent action against police personnel involved in custodial torture. Set up specialized district-level units to handle cases involving police custody and sensitive interrogations.
Reform Policing Structure: Separate the functions of law enforcement and investigation within the police to reduce conflicts of interest and minimize instances of custodial abuse.
Introduce human rights training for police on lawful interrogation methods and the consequences of torture. Equip judicial magistrates with training on fair remand practices and natural justice principles.
Independent Oversight: Mandate judicial magistrates to supervise custodial procedures and investigations. Establish independent investigative bodies to handle complaints of custodial torture and deaths, ensuring unbiased accountability.
Conclusion
Custodial torture remains a grave human rights violation in India, exacerbated by legal gaps, institutional impunity, and systemic failures. Strengthening laws (BNS/BNSS reforms, UNCAT ratification), ensuring independent oversight, and police accountability are critical to ending this menace. Without urgent action, custodial deaths and torture will persist unchecked.
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761, HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSURU – 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA
India post digipin
4M6-3LT-9P7P
4M6-3LT-9P73
Cell : 91 8970318202
WhatsApp 91 8970318202
Home page : https://e-inquirer.blogspot.com/
Contact : naag@gmx.com
Comments
Post a Comment