Deaths in Judicial Custody: Systemic Failures, Accountability Gaps, and the Protection of Prisoners’ Right to Life

Introduction

Deaths in Judicial Custody are those deaths of prisoners in custody who are either undertrial or convicted prisoners in custody of the prison under the jurisdiction of the courts.1 As compared to police custody where custody is temporary in nature and is investigative in nature, in judicial custody the individual is put under the guardianship of the judiciary and the prison administration.2 The problem persists because the official records always show high incidence of such deaths of prisoners mostly “natural” in nature whereas independent commissions receive many more complaints regarding such deaths of prisoners and there is a negligible rate of conviction of the concerned officials.3 Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law and is equally applicable to prisoners as well.4 It is also to be noted that the Supreme Court has often stated that the right to life also includes the right to life with dignity and protection against torture or neglect or any other preventable death.5 This article will discuss the legal aspects of deaths in judicial custody, analyze important judicial precedents with special emphasis on reasoning, point out the shortcomings and inconsistencies in this area and do a comparative study of the approaches.

Background

Judicial custody arises after remand of an accused by a magistrate into custody in jail after the completion of 24 hours' police custody or after the incarceration of a convict in jail to serve his sentence.6 The State being the custodian owes a non-delegable duty of care. Some of the important legislative provisions related to this right include: Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for inquiry into every death or disappearance in custody by judicial magistrates.7 The Prisons Act, 1894, and the state prison manuals provide the relevant standards regarding the conditions of confinement, medical treatment, and record keeping.8 The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 gives the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) the power to inquire into custodial deaths.9 Article 21 provides the broader Constitutional right, broadly construed to prohibit inhuman treatment and to impose positive obligations regarding healthcare and safety. Statistics give an idea about the magnitude of the problem.

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) statistics of 2024 report 1,960 deaths in prisons in India, out of which 1,737 deaths were due to natural causes and 166 deaths were unnatural deaths (mainly suicides). NHRC reports show that 90% or more of custodial deaths complaints relate to judicial custody deaths. 10

Critical Analysis

The core problem is not lack of legal norms but failure to implement them. The Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity without suffering from torture or any preventable ill.11 Legal norms, especially in the form of compulsory judicial inquiries in terms of Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (which has been preserved and strengthened by Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), provide for the independent review of every case of death in custody. Other norms, including prison manuals and the Prisons Act, 1894, prescribe duties with respect to health, hygiene, and documentation. However, the result of these norms being in place is a continuing high level of deaths from illness, suicide, or unknown causes, delay and manipulation in investigation, and few cases of conviction of responsible officers.12 While the framework of custodial deaths is constitutionally strong, it is rendered ineffective due to structural issues within the system. Most custodial deaths are declared to be 'natural,' covering up issues such as poor healthcare facilities and delays in transferring patients to hospitals. The judicial investigation under section 196 BNSS is done poorly, with the process being carried out by executive magistrates and delays in forensics leading to thousands of unresolved cases. Criminal accountability is close to none as no convictions occur, while compensation alone is not sufficient as a deterrence method.13 There is no uniformity in judicial actions with varying compliance with D.K. Basu directives and surveillance orders. There are a lack of an anti-torture legislation and statutory presumptions against custodial injury, putting heavy responsibility on the victims' family members.

Case Laws

1. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)14

Suman Behera was arrested on 1 December 1987. He was found dead on 2 December 1987 on a railway track suffering from various injuries. His mother, Nilabati Behera filed a writ petition in Supreme Court claiming that her son died in custody as a result of police atrocities. Judicial inquiry established that the death was indeed a custodial one.

It was to be decided whether the State could be held responsible for custodial death; whether it was a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution; and whether compensation could be granted as a part of constitutional remedies. Rule: Article 21 of the Constitution gives the right to life and personal liberty. Articles 32 and 226 empower constitutional courts to provide remedies for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Liability for custodial death is strict. Sovereign immunity does not apply in such cases.

The Court dismissed the State’s defense that the deceased escaped and met his death after being run over by a train. Post mortem and inquiry report disclosed injuries that were not consistent with the State’s contention. The Court held that once a person is in custody, his safety lies entirely on the State, and any infringement of his right to life results in liability. Compensation was viewed as a relief for the victim’s family as well as a deterrent against future custodial deaths. The Supreme Court ruled that the death was a custodial one and constituted a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. It ordered the State to pay compensation to Nilabati Behera. It laid down that constitutional courts could award compensation as a remedy in public law.

2. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)15

Reports about custodial violence and deaths had become common occurrences in India by the late 1980s. D.K. Basu, who was the Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services (West Bengal), wrote a letter to the Supreme Court bringing to their notice such occurrences and asking for guidelines to curb the abuse of power by the police. The Court proceeded on the basis of the letter assuming that it was a writ petition made under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The principal issue in this case related to whether custodial violence and deaths constituted a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and whether the Supreme Court could formulate guidelines binding the arrest and detention of individuals.

Article 21 provides for the right to life and liberty. Articles 32 and 226 give powers to constitutional courts to enforce fundamental rights. The Court referred to several prior judgments, one among which was Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa to affirm the strict liability of the State in cases of custodial violence.

The Court recognized the increasing trend of custodial deaths and violence and observed that such practices were opposed to the values upheld by the Constitution. It observed that the State has a role to play to make sure that people who are detained are safe. In order to stop the abuse, the Court formulated some guidelines for making arrests and detaining individuals. The Supreme Court held that custodial violence is a violation of Article 21 and stated that the guidelines shall be followed until legislation is passed.

3. Lahra Bai Tamre v. State of Chhattisgarh (2026)16

Shravan Suryavanshi was booked under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act in relation to possession of raw Mahua liquor. He was lodged in Central Jail, Bilaspur, and received several antemortem injuries including occipital scalp laceration leading to his death on 22 January 2024. Judicial inquiry carried out under Section 196 BNSS found custodial violence responsible for his death. The Chhattisgarh High Court acknowledged the custodial death but compensated with a paltry amount of ₹1 lakh without ordering an investigation. This decision was challenged by the deceased's wife and children in the Supreme Court.

Whether the State and its police authorities are liable for the death of the prisoner in custody, whether the compensation must be enhanced and whether there is need for carrying out an independent investigation in the matter by CBI.

Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, power under Article 226 of court to issue public law remedy, Section 196 BNSS, principle of strict liability and sovereign immunity. Supreme Court observed that from the medical reports and post-mortem examination, several injuries were noted, which could not be explained as suggested by the State. The explanations of senior police officials such as DGP and Home Secretary of the State are found to be false and perfunctory. There was an intention of concealing the truth from the Court. Thus, Supreme Court observed that the compensation of ₹1 lakh awarded by the High Court was totally inadequate keeping in view the violation.Supreme Court transferred the investigation to CBI, ordered registration of criminal case and granted compensation of ₹25 lakh to the legal heirs of the deceased.

Comparative Analysis

Custodial death jurisprudence throughout time exhibits continuity along with some improvements.17 Prior to Nilabati Behera (1993), the responses to custodial death were criminal prosecution, which was rarely successful. The Nilabati Behera case introduced public law compensation, whereas D.K. Basu (1997) introduced preventive measures. Later judgments, like CCTV directions (2020), and independent investigation orders (2026), have shifted towards systemic accountability.18 High custodial death rates and minimal number of convictions indicate no tangible empirical improvement. The variation can be observed at State level too; States having better health care services and oversight had lower numbers of deaths not explained by any reasons, while other states have higher numbers of illness-related deaths as the reason behind. In terms of international perspective, those nations who ratified the UNCAT and passed laws against torture ensure independent investigating bodies and accountability. India being non-signatory to the UNCAT lacks in legislative support.

Conclusion

It is clear from the discussion above that the deaths of inmates in judicial custody reveal an enduring gulf between the constitutional mandate to provide the right to life under Article 21 and the actual enforcement of such rights by those inmates. Some landmark judgments have correctly laid down the stringent obligation of the State to provide care, mandatory measures and procedures, and public law obligations to pay compensation. There are even statutory obligations of judicial inquiry. However, lack of systematic healthcare facilities, delayed investigations, backlogs of forensic examinations, and absolute lack of criminal liability still negate all of these obligations. Thus, the legal framework is sound in theory but deficient in practice. The right to life of prisoners can only be ensured by filling up the gap through proper investigation systems, forensic capability, mandatory inquiry measures, and legislative provision for the duty of care. Until these deficiencies are remedied, the promise of the constitution can be said to be partly fulfilled.

References

1 National Crime Records Bureau, Prison Statistics India 2024 (Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India).

2 Prisons Act, No. 9 of 1894 (India).

3 Protection of Human Rights Act, No. 10 of 1993 (India).

4 India Const. art. 21.

5 Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746; D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416.

6 India Const. art. 21.

7 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, No. 22 of 2023 (India).

8 Prisons Act, No. 9 of 1894 (India).

9 Protection of Human Rights Act, No. 10 of 1993 (India); D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 416 (India).

10 NCRB, supra note 1.

11 Nilabati Behera, supra note 5.

12 D.K. Basu, supra note 5.

13 D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 416 (India).

14 Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746.

15 D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416.

16 Lahra Bai Tamre v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 123.

17 Nilabati Behera, supra note 5; D.K. Basu, supra note 5; Lahra Bai Tamre, supra note 16.

18 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85.