DECCAN INQUIRER e news bi-weekly EDITOR: NAGARAJA.M.R. VOL.22 ….ISSUE...70……30/08/2026
What are the different rights of an arrested person?
1 – Right to know the grounds of arrest
Article- 22(1) of the Indian Constitution stipulates that no police official can arrest any individual without informing the accused the reason/ ground of his detainment/ arrest.
Section- 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) says that every police official with authority to arrest someone without a warrant must inform the person getting arrested about the crime for which he is arrested and other relevant grounds for the arrest. This is the duty of the police official which he cannot refuse.
Section- 50Aof the CrPC makes it compulsory for the person/ police official arresting a person to inform of the arrest to any of his relatives or even friends, who may have interest in the same.
Section- 55of the CrPC states that in situations where a police official authorises his junior to arrest a person without a warrant, the junior official must notify the arrested person of the order of delegation that is given, which must also mention the crime and the grounds of arrest.
Section- 75of the CrPC states that the police official executing the warrant must notify the substance to the arrested person and furnish the warrant of the arrest when required.
2- Right to be produced before the Magistrate without unnecessary delay
Article- 22(2) of the Indian Constitution stipulates that the police official making an arrest must produce the arrested person before the Magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest and failing to do so would make him liable for wrongful detention.
Section- 55 of the CrPC states that in case a police official is making an arrest without a warrant, then he must produce the person arrested without any unnecessary delay before the Magistrate within the jurisdiction or before a police officer in charge of the police station, depending upon the conditions of the arrest.
Section- 76 of the CrPC states that the arrested person must be produced in court within 24 hours of his arrest, the same can must exclude the time duration which is required for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate Court.
3- Right to be released on bail
Section- 50 (2) of CrPC provides that the arrested person has the right to get released on bail by making arrangement for the sureties and informing his of his right when arrested without a warrant for an offence other than a non-cognizable offence.
4- Right to a fair and just trial
The legal provision regarding the right to a fair and just trial can be extracted from the Indian Constitution as well as a lot of Supreme court and High court judgments since no specified law has been stipulated in this regard.
Article- 14 of the Indian Constitution states that ”every individual is equal before the law” which means that all the sides in a legal dispute must be treated equally.The principle of natural justice must be considered in respect to both the parties.
Similarly, a right to a speedy trial has also been upheld in “Huissainara Khatoon v/s Home Secretary, State of Bihar” where the court observed that, “the trial must be disposed of as diligently as possible”.
5- Right to consult a Lawyer
Article- 22 (1) of the Indian Constitution provides that every arrested person has the right to choose and elect his own lawyer to defend him in the court of law for whatever crime he may/ may not have committed.
Section- 41D of the CrPC allows prisoners to be able to consult with their lawyers even during their interrogation.
Section- 303 of the CrPC allows every alleged convict/ criminal the right to be defended by a lawyer of his choice even if the criminal proceedings against him have already begun.
6- Right to free legal aid
Article- 39A The government, in an effort towards securing justice, instituted Article- 39A to provide free legal aid to people in need. The same right was reaffirmed in the dispute of Khatri v/s Bihar, where the court held that, “the state must provide free legal aid to the poverty- stricken accused person”. The same right to free legal aid is provided at the first instance of production of the accused before the Magistrate in the court.Moreover, this right to free legal aid for the accused cannot be refused even when the accused fails to ask for it himself. Now, a key note to remember is that if the government is unable to provide free legal aid to the poverty- stricken accused person, then the entire trial will stand void. The same was firmly established in Sukh Das v/s Arunachal Pradesh where the Court held that, “the right of a poverty- stricken accused person cannot be refused even when the accused fails to apply for the same”.
Section- 304 of the CrPC provides a very significant right to every accused who is set to appear before a Sessions Court for appointment of a lawyer (totally free of cost) at the expense of the State. The court may appoint him a representing lawyer if the accused has no sufficient means to appoint himself a lawyer for his case.
7- Right to keep quiet
The right to keep quiet does not have any mention in any Indian law, however, its authority can be derived from the Constitution’s right against self-incrimination..
The right to stay silent is principally related to the statement and confession made by the accused person in the court. In addition to this, it is the responsibility of the magistrate to perceive if any statement or confession made by the accused person was voluntarily or was after the use of force and manipulation. Therefore, police or any other authority for that matter is not allowed to compel an accused person to speak anything in the court.
Article- 20(2) Additionally, reiterates that no person whether accused or not cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. This act of exposing oneself is the principle of self- incrimination. This principle was affirmed in the case of Nandini Satpathy v/s P.L. Dani, where the court observed that, “No person can force any other person to furnish any statement or compel to answer any question because the accused person has a right to keep quiet during his interrogation”.
8- Right to be examined by a Doctor
Section- 54 of CrPC asserts that if an arrested person claims that medical examination of his body would lead to a detail which would dismiss the fact of commission of the crime by him, or some detail that might lead to evidence towards commission of the crime by some other person against his body, the court has complete discretion to order for a medical examination of an accused person at his request and the same is granted by the court when satisfied that the request is not made to delay or defeat justice.
9- Additional rights available to an arrested person
Section- 55A of the CrPC asserts that maintaining reasonable heath care and safety of every arrested person will be the sole responsibility of the person (police official) who has the custody of the accused.This principle was established to protect the arrested person from cruel and inhuman treatment in prison.
Section- 358 of the CrPC is another groundbreaking effort towards the principle of natural justice where the arrested person is provided with compensation when arrested unreasonably.
Section- 41A of the CrPC asserts that the police official must furnish notice to the person who has supposedly committed a cognizable offence to appear before him at a specified time, date and location.
Section- 46 of the CrPC stipulates the mode of arrest of an accused person which includes submission to custody by the accused, physically touching the body, or to a body.
The police official must not cause death of the accused person while trying to arrest the person, except when the person to be arrested is accused of an offence, which is punishable with death or life imprisonment or when the accused person is trying to unnecessarily resist his arrest by turning violent and aggressive or when the accused is trying to escape.
Section- 49 of the CrPC asserts that the police official must not restrain or detain the accused without a legal arrest.
The landmark case of D.K. Basu v/s West Bengal and Ors. concentrates on “the rights of an arrested person which further compels the police officer to act in a certain way”.
The court further observed that if the police official is unable to perform his duty properly, then he will be accountable for contempt of court and also for a departmental inquiry. Such dispute can be initiated in any High Court that has the jurisdiction over the said case .
Regardless of numerous efforts to safeguard an accused person from unnecessary torture and inhuman conduct, number of custodial deaths and police atrocities are still common. Therefore, to overcome this, the Indian Apex court circulated nine significant guidelines to protect an accused person, which also included amendment to numerous sections of the CrPC which are as follows:
Section- 41B Every police official authorised to conduct the investigation/ arrest must supply clear, visible and valid badge where the name and designation of the police official is clearly mentioned.
Besides this, the police official authorised to make an arrest must prepare a cash memo with complete details of the arrest like the date and time. The same document must have signatures of at least one family member or any one honourable person of the locality of the accused. The arrested person has to countersign the cash memo.
Section 41D entitles an arrested person to a right to have one friend or relative or any other person who he wants by his side during his arrest.
The police must inform the person arrested about his right to inform someone immediately when the person is detained or put under custody.
Appropriate entry must be made in the diary and be maintained by the police which must furnish all the important information related to the arrest of the person, which must further include the details of the person accompanying the arrested person and also the details of the person to whom information regarding the arrest has been made.
The official diary must also include the name and additional particulars of the police officials under whose custody the arrested person is. Moreover, a medical examination has to be conducted but after the request of the arrested person, to put on record any minor or major injuries suffered by the arrested person. This inspection memo is supposed to be signed by both the police officials as well as the arrested person.
The arrested person has the right to meet his lawyer while in prison and during interrogation.
In addition to these, all the copies of the entire documentation must be sent across to the Magistrate for his record which must also include the arrest memo.
Section- 41C Every arrest made by any police official must be informed to the District and the State headquarters within 12 hours of any arrest which also needs to be displayed on the conspicuous board.
The Court in Yoginder Singh v/s State of Punjab observed that for the execution of Article- 21 as well as Article- 22(1) it is imperative that:-
The arrested person has the right to inform his friend, relative or any other person in his interest about his arrest.
The police official must inform the arrested person all his rights right after detainment/ arrest of the accused person.
The entry of the arrest with complete details must be made in a diary which must include the name of the person who has been informed about the arrest.
In another landmark case titled, Prem Shukla v/s Delhi Administration, the court observed that “the prisoners/ arrested persons have a right to not be handcuffed in shackles unless and until some extraordinary circumstances arise during the arrest or when in custody”.
India faces a huge problem of illegal arrests as well as custodial deaths, which are majorly caused due to illegal arrests. These problems undermine the essence of Article- 21 of the Indian Constitution as well as the fundamental human rights that are available to everyone under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The stipulations issued in D.K. Basu v/s West Bengal by the Supreme Court of India are not being properly executed and therefore, it is the need of the hour to try and execute the issued provisions and guidelines properly, which can definitely bear better results, ultimately assisting in the decrease in number of illegal arrests and resulting custodial deaths.
Police Power and House Arrest in India: Constitutional Limits, Legal Authority and the Right to Personal Liberty
- SR Darapuri IPS
The question whether the Indian police have the power to keep a person under house arrest goes to the heart of the relationship between state power and individual liberty.
In a constitutional democracy, the police possess extensive powers to prevent crime, maintain public order and investigate offences. Yet these powers are not unlimited. The police are themselves subject to the Constitution, statutory law, judicial scrutiny and principles of necessity and proportionality.
The central proposition is simple: Indian police do not possess a general, unrestricted power to place a citizen under house arrest merely on the basis of an officer’s discretion. Where a person is effectively prevented from leaving his or her home, there must be lawful authority for such a serious restriction of personal liberty.
House Arrest and the Rule of Law
“House arrest” is not simply a matter of police convenience. It involves restricting a person’s freedom of movement and, potentially, depriving that person of personal liberty. Article 21 of the Constitution declares that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
The significance of Article 21 is that liberty cannot be taken away merely because the executive considers such action desirable. There must be legal authority, and the exercise of that authority must satisfy constitutional requirements.
Consequently, if police officers arrive at a person’s residence and say, “You cannot leave your house until we permit you to do so,” the mere fact that the police call this “preventive action” does not automatically make it lawful. The substance of the action is more important than the terminology used by the authorities.
If a person is physically prevented from leaving, threatened with arrest if he or she leaves, or subjected to continuous police surveillance intended to prevent departure, the restriction may have the practical character of detention.
Police Powers under the BNSS
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides police with powers of arrest in specified circumstances. These powers include circumstances in which the police may arrest without a warrant and, in limited situations, undertake preventive action to prevent the commission of cognizable offences.
But preventive policing is not equivalent to unlimited executive detention.
The law imposes safeguards concerning arrest and detention. A person who has been arrested must ordinarily be informed of the grounds of arrest, has rights concerning legal representation and must be produced before a Magistrate within the constitutionally and statutorily prescribed period.
The important principle is therefore:
Preventive policing does not create an unlimited police power to confine citizens in their homes.
Where the police wish to deprive an individual of liberty beyond the ordinary period permitted by law, appropriate statutory and judicial safeguards become essential.
Preventive Action and House Arrest Are Not the Same
Police frequently invoke the concept of “preventive action” when they believe that a person may participate in an activity that could result in a breach of peace.
Preventive policing is legitimate in a democratic society. The State has a responsibility to prevent violence and protect public order. But preventive power must remain preventive rather than punitive.
This distinction is particularly important in relation to political demonstrations.
A person who intends to participate in a peaceful demonstration cannot ordinarily be treated as though he or she has already committed a crime. The possibility that a demonstration might cause inconvenience or criticism of the government cannot by itself justify indefinite deprivation of liberty.
The State must demonstrate a genuine legal basis and a sufficiently concrete threat to public order.
Restrictions on Assembly Do Not Automatically Authorise House Arrest.
The government and police may, under appropriate legal provisions, impose reasonable restrictions upon assemblies and movement when there is a genuine threat to public order.
But a restriction on an assembly is fundamentally different from confining particular individuals to their homes.
For example, an order prohibiting an unlawful assembly in a particular area does not automatically authorise police officers to prevent every political activist from leaving his or her residence.
The constitutional question becomes particularly serious when police use such restrictions selectively against particular individuals because they are expected to participate in a protest.
A public-order law cannot become a mechanism for informal political detention.
The Importance of Article 19
The issue is not confined to Article 21. House arrest can also implicate the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19.
Article 19 protects, among other rights:
freedom of speech and expression; peaceful assembly; association; movement throughout India; and the right to practise a profession or occupation.
These rights are not absolute. The State can impose reasonable restrictions on them in constitutionally permitted circumstances.
But the restrictions must have a legitimate legal basis and must be reasonable and proportionate.
Thus, preventing a person from attending a peaceful public meeting by confining that person to their home potentially affects both personal liberty under Article 21 and freedoms under Article 19.
The Difference Between Arrest and De Facto Detention
One of the most important issues is whether the authorities can avoid constitutional safeguards simply by saying:
“You are not arrested.”
The answer cannot depend solely upon the label.
Suppose police officers remain outside a person’s residence and inform the person that leaving the house will result in arrest. Technically, the person might not have been formally arrested. But if the person is effectively unable to leave, the practical effect may be one of detention.
Constitutional law must examine the substance rather than merely the form of state action.
Otherwise, the executive could evade safeguards surrounding arrest simply by creating a system of informal confinement.
This would be inconsistent with the basic principle of the rule of law.
Special Laws and Preventive Detention
There are circumstances in which Indian law does permit preventive detention under specific legislation.
For example, the National Security Act, 1980 provides a statutory framework for preventive detention. Other special legislation has also historically contained preventive-detention mechanisms.
Where Parliament has expressly created such a power, the executive may exercise it subject to the statutory conditions and constitutional safeguards.
This demonstrates an important distinction:
House arrest cannot be justified merely because the police consider it useful; where the State seeks preventive detention, it must identify the legal provision that authorises the deprivation of liberty.
Even preventive detention under a special statute remains subject to constitutional safeguards.
The 24-Hour Safeguard
One of the fundamental protections against arbitrary police detention is the requirement concerning production before a Magistrate.
The Constitution, together with criminal-procedure law, establishes safeguards against prolonged detention without judicial oversight.
The underlying principle is extremely important: the police cannot become the final judge of whether a citizen should remain deprived of liberty.
Judicial supervision is one of the mechanisms through which executive power is restrained.
This is particularly significant where the police claim that detention is necessary to prevent a possible offence. Preventive powers can otherwise become susceptible to abuse.
House Arrest and Political Dissent
The question assumes a special importance when the person concerned is a political activist, journalist, civil-rights defender or participant in a peaceful protest.
Democracy does not merely protect citizens when they agree with the government. The constitutional protection of dissent becomes most important when citizens criticise those in power.
A government that can prevent inconvenient political voices from leaving their homes merely by issuing informal police instructions would possess an extraordinarily broad power over democratic participation.
Such a power would have implications far beyond an individual case.
It could discourage citizens from participating in demonstrations, meetings and political organisations. It could create a climate of fear in which people refrain from exercising their constitutional freedoms because they anticipate police intervention.
Thus, de facto house arrest can become an instrument for suppressing dissent if it is not strictly controlled by law.
The Jantar Mantar Context
The issue becomes particularly relevant in the context of recent controversies surrounding police action against protesters at Jantar Mantar.
If police prevent an individual from travelling to a peaceful protest by placing officers outside the person’s residence, refusing to permit departure, threatening arrest, or otherwise making departure practically impossible, the critical legal question is not simply whether the police call the action “preventive.”
The questions should instead be:
What was the legal authority?
Was there a written order?
Who issued it?
Was the individual formally arrested?
If arrested, what were the grounds?
Was the person informed of those grounds?
Was the detention authorised by law?
Was judicial oversight available?
How long was the restriction imposed?
Was there credible evidence of an imminent threat to public order?
Was the restriction necessary and proportionate?
These questions transform the discussion from a matter of police discretion into a question of constitutional accountability.
The Ambedkarite Perspective
From an Ambedkarite perspective, this issue must ultimately be understood through the relationship between liberty, equality, democracy and constitutional morality.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar did not conceive democracy merely as a system of periodic elections. Democracy also requires constitutional restraints upon governmental power and respect for individual liberty.
The police are an instrument of the State, not an autonomous sovereign authority. Their legitimacy derives from law.
This distinction is crucial. A police officer may possess considerable coercive power, but that power is delegated power. It does not belong personally to the officer.
Consequently:
The police can exercise only such coercive power as the Constitution and law permit.
When police power becomes detached from legal authority, discretion can turn into arbitrariness. When discretion becomes arbitrary, the rule of law begins to give way to the rule of officials.
That is precisely why constitutional morality requires public authorities to respect not only the interests of the majority or the government of the day but also the rights of individuals and minorities who dissent.
Judicial Remedies
A person who is unlawfully deprived of liberty is not without remedy.
The constitutional jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 provides important mechanisms for challenging unlawful detention and deprivation of liberty.
The remedy of habeas corpus is particularly significant. Its underlying purpose is to require the State to justify the legal basis upon which an individual’s liberty has been restricted.
This makes judicial review an essential safeguard against arbitrary executive power.
Conclusion
The Indian police undoubtedly possess important preventive and arrest powers. A democratic State cannot function without the ability to prevent violence, investigate crime and maintain public order.
But public order cannot become a blanket justification for the deprivation of personal liberty.
There is an essential constitutional difference between:
lawful preventive action and arbitrary preventive detention; reasonable restrictions and de facto confinement; police discretion and police arbitrariness and lawful arrest and informal house arrest without legal authority.
Therefore, the answer to the question is clear: Indian police do not have an unrestricted power to keep a person under house arrest merely on their own authority. A genuine deprivation of liberty must be traceable to law and must satisfy constitutional safeguards, including legality, necessity, reasonableness and proportionality.
The deeper democratic lesson is that the police must protect constitutional freedoms, not determine their boundaries according to their own convenience.
In a constitutional democracy, the citizen is not required to prove why he or she deserves liberty; rather, the State must demonstrate the legal authority and constitutional justification for taking liberty away.
Answer Karnataka Police
Editorial : Karnataka Police Accountability ?
RTI information request to Honourable Home Secretary Government of Karnataka
Honourable Sir,
In democracy flow of information between government and public is essential, a must. Every indian citizen has right to seek & get information as part of his fundamental right of expression.
In addition to this government has enacted RTI Act fixing responsibilities on public servants.
There is no bar on number of informations requested . Also if information is not with the requested section of the department but with another section of same department, then that part of RTI application must be transferred to that particular section. Public servant can not shirk stating he doesn't have information. Also nobody can charge above Rs.10.
Cunning public servants to hide crimes have invented their own interpretations of RTI Act and deny informations under various pretexts.
All our following information request concerns one subject ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS IN YOUR DEPARTMENT. If you don't have information with you , transfer it to official who has that information.
To my previous requests , you have not given information requested and gave elusive replies, partial information just like criminals do during police interrogation. Your denial of information amounts to crime cover ups making yourselves criminals.
Please give me full correct information about following under RTI Act :
List of action taken against police and other department officials involved in bellary mining scam as reported by Honourable Karnataka lokayukta Justice Santhosh Hegde.
List of action taken against advocates and police responsible for riots in city civil court bengaluru.
List of action taken against police officials involved in dacoity at yelwal mysuru ?
List of action taken against police officials involved in lottery scam.
List of action taken against STF police personnel who illegally tortured innocent tribals in MM hills during operation veerappan and indicted by Justice A J Sadashiva commission.
List of action taken against police officials who tortured , lathi charged innocent old people , pregnant women during mahadayi protests.
List of action taken against parappana agrahara jail officials colluding with criminals / jail inmates as mentioned in report by DIG Roopa.
Give me the list of police officials facing corruption , criminal charges with their names and posting.
Full list of complaints / appeals made by me to karnataka police through DARPG , DPG , PGRTL websites.
Copies of statements taken from accused , copies of letters sent to government and action taken by police with regards to each complaint / appeal.
List of action taken by karnataka police to enquire people with legal immunity in above mentioned complaints.
Paying guest accommodation has mushroomed every where. Some PGs resemble lodges. Give us list of actions by police to monitor PGs.
Inform us the amount of ransom paid from karnataka state exchequer to forest brigand veerappan to free kidnapped movie star raj kumar and ex minister nagappa.
Many big jewellery shops are running gold chit funds and collecting monthly EMI from public. Give us list of actions taken by police to stop it.
Years back few female prisoners of parappana agrahara jail have accused jail officials of forcing them into sex trade within jail premises. List of action taken against guilty jail police.
Give us the status of enquiry regarding accusation against IPS Kempaiah wrongly claiming ST caste reservation.
List of police officials facing enquiry and how many indicted for wrongly claiming SC ST OBC caste reservation.
Give us the status of enquiry regarding alleged involvement of then DCP Malagathi in property dispute of taxidermist van ingen.
List of police officials caught by ACB Karnataka Lokayukta in last 30 years.
Give us statistics of undertrials and convicts with caste break up in last 20 years.
KPSC scams are frequent and how many police officials are in service whose recruitment process itself is in question before judiciary. Give us the list of police officials whose selection is pending adjudication.
Police frequently conduct raids on jails unearthing weapons, mobiles, drugs. It is not possible without connivance of jail police. Give us the list of jail raids conducted in last 30 years and action taken by police in each case.
Give us list of deaths of under trials , convicts happened in police station , jails in last 30 years and list of action taken against guilty police officials in each case.
Give us the yearly conviction rate of criminals in last 30 years.
List of accused persons acquitted by courts in last 30 years. Year wise statistics please.
Give us the list of amount of compensation paid by government to each acquitted person for suffering injustice at the hands of government.
List of action taken against guilty police officials in each case who wrongly accused innocents of crimes.
List of cases of dalit atrocities registered in karnataka in last 30 years.
Few dalits misuse provisions of dalits atrocities prevention act to fix their opponents. List of false dalit atrocities cases filed in last 30 years. List of action taken against such dalits in each case.
Copy of case diary with regards to roost resort sex scandal involving high court judges.
Please give us the break up numbers of police stations in karnataka having working CCTV connection and stations without CCTV connection.
Most of the times common people are orally summoned to police stations , enquiry, detention not recorded in station diary. This facilitates few guilty police to escape legal prosecution in cases of third degree torture & lock up deaths. List of actions government has taken to prevent oral summons , illegal detentions and third degree torture of innocents by police.
List of Police officials (including those on deputation ) facing criminals charges ,
departmental enquiry in the past 20 years. Give us name of police official , current
posting, description of charges against them yearwise from 2004.
List of judges , quasi judicial officers like tahsildars , deputy commissioner, sub
registrar , etc (including those on deputation ) facing criminals charges , police
departmental enquiry in the past 20 years. Give us name of concerned official ,
current posting, description of charges against them yearwise from 2004.
List of action taken against police officials involved in dharmasthala sowjanya murder case cover up , for framing innocent santhosh rao in the crime , using 3rd torture on him to murder him.
List of action taken against periyapatna police officials involved in framing innocent tribal Suresh in the murder , using 3rd torture on him to murder him.
Did karnataka police officially Apologize to innocents santhosh rao and Tribal Suresh ? Did police pay any compensation to both of them ? If not why ?
Thank you
Nagaraja M R
Police Torture in India
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