Why this is in the news

 The Supreme Court recently rebuked the Central Bureau of Investigation in a Madhya Pradesh custodial-death case and warned that it “will not spare” investigators if any harm comes to the key eyewitness. The Court even said it could frame contempt charges if arrests are not made in time. This sharp message has put the spotlight back on the safety of people in custody and on the duties of the police and jail authorities. 

What are “custodial deaths”? 

• A custodial death is a death that occurs when a person is in the custody of the State.
• It includes two settings:
  1. Police custody — when a person is detained, arrested, or otherwise held by the police (in a police station, lock-up, or during transit).
  2. Judicial custody — when a person is lodged in a prison or jail while on trial or after conviction.
• Both are the State’s responsibility, because the State controls the person’s movement, safety, and access to care.
  

Related terms :

• Torture: Any physical or mental pain or suffering inflicted by a public official for a purpose such as getting a confession or punishment.
• Encounter death: A death in a police action that the police claim happened in self-defence; the Supreme Court has separate safeguards for these cases.

Law, safeguards, and the ground reality 

Constitutional foundation

• The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is non-negotiable.
• Protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) shields people from being forced to confess.
• The Code of Criminal Procedure sets rules for arrest and detention, including reasons for arrest, medical checks, and production before a magistrate within twenty-four hours.
  

What the Supreme Court has laid down 

• D. K. Basu case (1997): A checklist that every police station must follow during arrest and detention. Officers must wear identification; an arrest memo must be prepared; a relative or friend must be informed; entries must be made in the station diary; the arrested person must get medical examination and legal aid; and these rights must be displayed in police stations. These directions are binding across India.
• Joginder Kumar case (1994): Arrest is not automatic; it must serve a clear need. Police must record reasons and inform a relative or friend promptly.
• Arnesh Kumar case (2014): For many offences, police should prefer issuing a notice to appear instead of arrest. Reasons for arrest must be written down.
• Nilabati Behera case (1993): Constitutional courts can award compensation for violation of the right to life in custodial-death cases.
• People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs State of Maharashtra (2014): For alleged “encounter” deaths, there must be an independent investigation and a magisterial inquiry.
• Paramvir Singh Saini case (2020): Police stations and interrogation rooms must have cameras with audio, and footage must be preserved with proper oversight.
  

What do recent numbers say?

• The National Human Rights Commission reported 2,152 deaths in judicial custody and 155 deaths in police custody up to 28 February 2022 (for the financial year 2021–22). The Union Home Ministry told Parliament that 4,484 cases of custodial deaths were reported over financial years 2020–21 and 2021–22. These figures show the scale of the problem.
• The National Crime Records Bureau publishes causes of custodial deaths reported by States and Union Territories (such as suicide, illness, injuries before custody, and others). These tables are used to check patterns, identify hot spots, and improve oversight.
• Civil-society and research reports argue that official data may under-count police-custody deaths and highlight the gap between recorded figures and ground reality. Regardless of the exact totals, the signal is clear: deaths in custody continue every year and demand stronger prevention and accountability. 

Why custodial deaths happen 

1) Weak discipline around arrest and detention

• Arrests are sometimes made as a routine step even when they are not necessary.
• Station diaries, arrest memos, and medical entries can be incomplete or delayed.
• Families are not informed quickly; legal aid comes late; paperwork is treated as a formality.
• When the first steps are weak, the risk of abuse, neglect, or cover-up rises.

2) Pressure to solve cases and reliance on confessions

• A long-standing culture values quick “case detection.”
• Forensic tools, trained interview methods, and patient evidence collection are not used enough.
• This can tempt officers to use force or intimidation during questioning, which is illegal and dangerous. Even when there is no intent to torture, rough handling and long hours can cause harm.

3) Health and mental-health gaps

• Many official records list “illness,” “suicide,” or “injuries before custody” as causes of death. But the State still holds a duty of care.
• Screening for chronic disease, mental stress, and addiction is not uniform.
• Referral to hospitals is slow in some districts; night-time medical cover is thin; suicide-prevention systems are weak.

4) Cameras and audit trails that do not actually work

• Courts have ordered closed-circuit cameras with audio, but coverage is patchy.
• Footage is sometimes not preserved, not stored long enough, or not reviewed by an independent body.
• Without reliable video and a clear chain of custody for evidence, misconduct is hard to prove, and good officers are also left open to false charge.

5) Investigations that are not fully independent

• If local police investigate their own colleagues, there is a conflict of interest.
• Families and witnesses can be pressured; evidence can be lost or handled poorly.
• Delays in registering a First Information Report, delays in magisterial inquiry, and slow forensic timelines make truth-finding harder.

6) Systemic gaps inside prisons

• Overcrowding, staff shortages, limited medical facilities, and slow referrals can turn treatable illnesses into tragedies.
• Mental-health services are weak; suicide-prevention protocols are not standardised across prisons.

7) Social and institutional factors

• Marginalised communities often face higher risk at the point of contact with the State.
• Training in human rights and modern interviewing is uneven.
• Leadership does not always reward officers who follow the slower, evidence-led path.
  

The Way Ahead

Make arrest rule-based and visible

• Record reasons for arrest in every case; prefer a notice to appear when the law permits.
• Give the arrested person and their family a rights sheet in a language they understand.
• Inform a relative or friend at once and notify the local legal aid body.
• Twice every year, audit each police station against the D. K. Basu and Arnesh Kumar checklists. Publish district-wise compliance results.

Put health first from the first minute

• Do two medical examinations at a minimum: at the time of taking into custody and before every court production.
• Store medical reports securely; send copies to the magistrate and to the family.
• Fix a time limit for referral to a hospital if certain red-flag symptoms appear.
• Set up tele-medicine in every police station and jail; track how quickly consultations happen.

Make cameras real, not token

• Cover every lock-up, corridor, and interrogation room with cameras that have audio and night vision.
• Keep footage for at least eighteen months; maintain an unbroken log of who accessed what and when.
• Create a district-level independent committee (with a nominee of the district judge) to spot-check footage each month and to certify storage.

Ensure independent, time-bound investigation

• In every custodial death, register a First Information Report, conduct a magisterial inquiry, and hand investigation to a unit outside the district’s chain of command.
• Follow the “encounter” safeguards—independent probe, forensic checks, and reports to the court—even when the death is not claimed to be an encounter.
• Protect the family and witnesses; if needed, move the case or transfer officers to prevent intimidation.

Upgrade prisons with measurable standards

• Reduce overcrowding through bail reform, faster trials, and non-custodial options where law allows.
• Ensure round-the-clock medical cover in central prisons; standardise mental-health screening; install suicide-prevention infrastructure.
• Publish quarterly health and safety dashboards for each jail.

Build capacity and change culture

• Train officers in modern interviewing that does not rely on force; expand use of body microphones and audio-video recording of statements.
• Invest in forensics, crime-scene management, and digital evidence so that cases are built on facts, not confessions.
• Tie promotions of station heads to compliance with arrest rules, camera uptime, and health protocols.

Close the law gap

• Enact a stand-alone law against torture that clearly defines the offence, fixes responsibility up the chain of command, protects whistle-blowers and witnesses, and makes victim compensation a right with a simple process.
• Move toward ratifying the United Nations Convention against Torture with any safeguards that Parliament decides are needed.
• Issue uniform rules for preservation of video evidence, post-mortem video recording, and sharing of documents with families.

Use data to guide action

• Create a single national format for reporting each custodial death, covering medical history, timeline of custody, video-footage status, hospital referrals, and names of responsible officers at each step.
• Publish yearly maps of problem districts and reward those that show sustained improvements.
  

Exam hook 

Why do custodial deaths keep happening despite many rules? Because the “last mile” fails. Papers are filled but not verified. Cameras exist but do not record or store. Medical checks are done but not followed by timely care. Inquiries are ordered but not independent. The answer is to replace discretion with design: rights sheets in every custody file, cameras that are audited, medical triggers that force hospital referral, independent investigation by default, and a simple law that names torture, fixes responsibility, and protects witnesses. When steps are automatic and verifiable, culture changes.

Key takeaways

• Custodial deaths cover both police and judicial custody; the State has a higher duty of care.
• The Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure protect life and liberty; Supreme Court rulings give a clear checklist for arrest, detention, cameras, compensation, and independent probes.
• Causes include weak arrest discipline, pressure to extract confessions, health and mental-health gaps, cameras that do not work, non-independent probes, prison overcrowding, and uneven training.
• The way ahead is simple to say and hard to do: follow the arrest checklist, make health first, ensure working cameras, guarantee independent investigations, upgrade prisons, build capacity, and pass a stand-alone anti-torture law.
• Trust grows when rules become visible and verifiable.
  

UPSC Mains question

“Despite strong constitutional safeguards and detailed directions by the Supreme Court, custodial deaths continue in India.”
Analyse the main reasons for custodial deaths in both police and judicial custody. Discuss the existing legal safeguards and landmark judgments, and propose a practical plan covering arrest protocols, medical care, camera systems, independent investigation, witness protection, prison reform, and the need for a stand-alone anti-torture law. (250 words)

One-line wrap

When the State takes charge of a person’s life, care must rise—not fall; the sure path to end custodial deaths is to make every safeguard automatic, visible, and independently checked.