Custodial Torture in India

The custodial death of Ajith Kumar in Sivaganga district of Tamil Nadu has reignited concerns about police brutality, procedural violations, and the persistence of custodial torture despite repeated judicial censure. The incident has led to political backlash, arrests of policemen, and demands for systemic reforms.

Structural Deficiencies in Policing Practices

• Lack of Procedural Compliance: Ajith Kumar was detained without an FIR or formal complaint, and tortured by a police team in plain clothes, highlighting blatant disregard for Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) and CrPC safeguards.
• Prevalence of Third-Degree Methods: Despite the Supreme Court’s warnings (e.g., DK Basu vs State of West Bengal, 1997), use of physical violence to extract confessions continues as a routine practice in India’s criminal justice system.
• Targeting of Marginalised Communities: Victims of custodial violence are often from socially and economically oppressed groups, making them vulnerable to unchecked police power.

Institutional Accountability and Political Response

• Political Fallout and Reactive Measures: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister ordered suspension and arrest of involved officers and transferred the case to the CBI, along with offering monetary compensation and a government job to the victim’s family.
• Judicial Intervention: The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) strongly condemned the act, equating it to "state-organised crime," and demanded accountability beyond junior officers.
• Repeat Offender Syndrome: The incident is reminiscent of the Sattankulam custodial deaths (2020), reflecting systemic failure in ensuring deterrence and reform after previous high-profile cases.

Legal Safeguards and the Way Forward

• Legal Framework and Gaps: India is yet to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). The Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010 lapsed and has not been reintroduced. There is no standalone anti-torture law in India.
• Judicial Guidelines: In DK Basu case, the SC laid down detailed procedural safeguards including mandatory medical examination, information to relatives, and rights of arrested persons, but enforcement remains weak.
• Recommendations and Reforms: Establish independent police complaint authorities (as per Prakash Singh judgment, 2006), ensure CCTV surveillance inside police stations (as mandated by SC in 2020), and fast-track trials of custodial violence cases.

Practice Question:

Custodial torture and deaths remain a persistent challenge in India despite the presence of constitutional safeguards and Supreme Court directives. Critically examine the structural deficiencies and legal gaps contributing to this issue. Suggest effective institutional reforms to address the problem.          (250 words)