Why in news?

The Supreme Court criticised the Union government for not responding to its five-year-old directive to install CCTV cameras in all police stations and central agency offices such as the CBI, ED and NIA. Only 11 States/UTs submitted compliance reports; the Centre did not.

The Bench expressed shock that custodial torture continues unabated, citing 11 custodial deaths in Rajasthan within eight months. The judges observed that custodial brutality persists despite earlier judicial orders.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Custodial Torture in India: A Persisting Human Rights Crisis
• Supreme Court Pulls Up Centre for Ignoring CCTV Directions

Custodial Torture in India: A Persisting Human Rights Crisis

• Custodial torture in India is a widespread and systemic human rights violation involving physical and psychological abuse of individuals in police or judicial custody.
• Despite the high number of custodial deaths each year, conviction rates remain extremely low, reflecting deep-rooted impunity and weak accountability mechanisms within the system.
• Prisoners’ dignity and fundamental rights are protected under international law.
• The UN Charter (1945) emphasizes humane treatment, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) safeguards individuals from torture, cruel treatment, and enforced disappearances, ensuring security and dignity.
• Scale of the Problem
  • Custodial torture—both physical and psychological—remains widespread and systemic.
  • NHRC reported 2,739 custodial deaths in 2024, up from 2,400 in 2023.
  • Marginalised groups—Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, daily-wage earners—are disproportionately targeted.
  • Accountability is abysmal: Zero convictions in 345 judicial inquiries (2017–2022) despite arrests and charge sheets.
• Why Custodial Torture Persists?
  • Absence of Specific Anti-Torture Law - India lacks a dedicated legislation criminalising torture as per global standards. Although India signed UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT, 1997), it has not ratified it.
  • Culture of Impunity - Police personnel often shield each other, discouraging accountability. Systemic misuse of coercive interrogation methods remains widespread.
  • Systemic and Institutional Failures - Overworked police forces, inadequate training in non-coercive techniques. Weak prison infrastructure and insufficient oversight mechanisms.
  • Weak Legal Protection for Victims - Fear of retaliation and lack of legal aid prevent victims from reporting abuse.
• Legal & Judicial Safeguards
  • Article 14: Ensures that all individuals are treated equally, reinforcing that law enforcement agencies are not above the law.
  • Article 21: Right to life includes protection from torture.
  • Article 20(1): Prohibits conviction for acts that were not offences when committed and guards against excessive or arbitrary punitive actions.
  • Article 20(3): Protection against self-incrimination.
  • D.K. Basu Guidelines (1997): Mandate arrest memo, medical exam, identification of police officers, etc.
• New Criminal Laws
  • Section 120, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - Criminalises causing hurt or grievous hurt to extract confessions or information through violence or coercion.
  • Section 35, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Requires that all arrests and detentions follow legally valid, clearly documented procedures.
  • Section 22, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) - Declares confessions obtained under inducement, threat, coercion, or promise as legally inadmissible.

Supreme Court Pulls Up Centre for Ignoring CCTV Directions

• The Supreme Court expressed displeasure that only 11 States/UTs had filed compliance affidavits regarding the installation of functional CCTVs in police stations.
• The Union government had not filed its response either.
• Background: The 2020 Nariman Judgment
  • In Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh (2020), the Supreme Court mandated CCTV installation in police stations and offices of all agencies with arrest and interrogation powers — including the NIA, CBI, ED, NCB, DRI, and SFIO.
  • This was ordered to safeguard fundamental rights and deter custodial torture.
• Debate on CCTVs and Security Concerns
  • The Centre argued that CCTV installation outside police stations could be counter-productive, citing security concerns.
  • The court disagreed, referring to live-streamed police stations in the U.S. and the need for more open correctional facilities to reduce overcrowding.