Role of the Judiciary in Preventing Police Custodial Violence in India: A Critical Legal Analysis

Abstract

Police custody places an individual in a setting where State authority is unusually concentrated, while personal liberty, freedom of movement, and access to outside assistance are substantially restricted. This article critically examines how the Indian judiciary has responded to the risk of police custodial violence through constitutional interpretation, judicial supervision, remedial development, and institutional directions. The study follows a doctrinal and analytical method and draws upon the Constitution of India, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS), the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS), major decisions of the Supreme Court, human-rights standards, and official materials.

Indian courts have developed several overlapping safeguards against custodial abuse. Arrest must be supported by lawful necessity rather than treated as a routine exercise of police authority. An arrested person must be told the grounds of arrest and produced before a Magistrate within the constitutionally prescribed period. Continued detention requires independent judicial consideration, while medical examination, documentation, and other safeguards must remain effective throughout custody. Where torture, serious injury, or custodial death is alleged, the circumstances demand a credible investigation. Constitutional courts may also award public-law compensation where infringement of fundamental rights is established.

In “D K Basu v State of West Bengal”, the Supreme Court translated constitutional protections into practical safeguards governing arrest and detention. “Joginder Kumar v State of Uttar Pradesh” and “Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar” further restricted unnecessary arrest and emphasised the need to justify detention. “Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa” strengthened the availability of compensation for constitutional violations, while “Prakash Singh v Union of India” addressed wider structural concerns relating to police accountability. In “Paramvir Singh Saini v Baljit Singh”, the Court added an important technological safeguard by directing audiovisual surveillance in police stations and offices of specified investigating agencies.

Yet strong doctrine does not necessarily produce effective protection in practice. Safeguards lose much of their force when remand proceedings become mechanical, access to legal assistance is delayed, medical records are superficial, electronic evidence disappears, or judicial directions are not followed by meaningful compliance review. The introduction of the new criminal laws does not diminish the need for active judicial supervision. Effective prevention requires Magistrates to examine the legality and necessity of custody at first production and at every subsequent extension, record reasons for their decisions, respond promptly to alleged or visible injuries, arrange independent medical examination when required, preserve CCTV footage and custody records, and facilitate an independent investigation where the circumstances justify one. The judiciary therefore functions not merely as a source of relief after custodial abuse has occurred, but as a constitutional checkpoint capable of intervening before the harm becomes irreversible.

Keywords: ; ; ; ; ; ;;