Law enforcement officers resort to the use of force to obtain a ‘confession’ based solely on suspicionLaw enforcement officers resort to the use of force to obtain a ‘confession’ based solely on suspicion
- Institutional Culture and Systemic Pressures: A pervasive culture of impunity exists within law enforcement agencies, where torture is often seen as a legitimate and expedient tool for investigation. Immense pressure to solve cases quickly and secure convictions leads police to rely on forced confessions rather than scientific and evidence-based investigation methods. This is compounded by inadequate training, poor service conditions, and a lack of sensitization towards human rights.
- Legal and Legislative Gaps: A significant lacuna is India’s failure to enact a standalone law against torture, despite being a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and repeated recommendations from the Law Commission of India. While sections of the CrPC and the Indian Evidence Act provide some protection, they are insufficient. Moreover, Section 197 of the CrPC, which requires government sanction to prosecute public servants, acts as a formidable shield for errant officials, making accountability nearly impossible.
- Failure of Accountability Mechanisms: Oversight bodies like the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) are often hamstrung by a lack of resources and punitive powers. Their recommendations are merely advisory and frequently ignored by state governments. The absence of an effective and independent complaints authority at the district level, as recommended in the Prakash Singh v. Union of India case, means that victims have little recourse against their tormentors.
- Judicial Interventions and Implementation Deficit: The Supreme Court has repeatedly condemned custodial violence and laid down comprehensive guidelines to prevent it, most notably in the landmark D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal case. These guidelines include informing the accused of their rights, allowing access to a lawyer, and mandatory medical examination. More recently, in the Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh case, the Court mandated the installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations. However, the core issue remains the glaring gap between these judicial directives and their implementation on the ground.
- Socio-Economic Vulnerability: The victims of custodial torture are disproportionately from marginalized and vulnerable sections of society—the poor, Dalits, Adivasis, and religious minorities. Lacking social capital, financial resources, and legal awareness, they are easy targets for police brutality and find it exceedingly difficult to fight for justice.
- Immediate Legislative Action: The Parliament must enact a comprehensive anti-torture law in line with UNCAT, which criminalizes torture, provides for stringent punishment, and establishes a fair mechanism for victim compensation and rehabilitation.
- Systemic Police Reforms: Implementing the Supreme Court’s directives in the Prakash Singh case is crucial. This includes separating investigation from law and order wings to promote specialization and professionalism, and establishing independent Police Complaints Authorities to ensure accountability.
- Technological and Infrastructural Upgrades: Full compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive on CCTV cameras in all police stations, interrogation rooms, and lock-ups, with independent oversight of the footage, must be ensured.
- Strengthening Oversight Bodies: The NHRC and SHRCs must be empowered with greater autonomy and punitive authority to enforce their recommendations.
- Sensitization and Training: A paradigm shift is needed in the mindset of police personnel through mandatory and continuous training on human rights, constitutional principles, and modern, scientific investigation techniques.
