Custodial Violence and Judicial Attitudes in India

The Chhattisgarh High Court’s judgment in a custodial death case sparked intense debate on the rule of law and police accountability. The court noted that police officers intended to teach a lesson to a detained Dalit man who later died in custody. This phrase revealed a troubling mindset that normalises state violence under the guise of discipline. The case marks ongoing challenges in addressing custodial violence and caste-based discrimination within India’s justice system.

Recent Judicial Observations on Custodial Deaths

The High Court reduced murder charges to culpable homicide, citing lack of intent but awareness that assault could cause death. It accepted the idea that violence was meant as correction. Such language signals tolerance for brutality. Courts risk legitimising police excesses by framing violence as deterrence rather than crime. This undermines constitutional protections and due process.

Police Violence as a Tool of Discipline

Teaching a lesson is not a legal or constitutional principle. It reflects vigilante logic where force replaces justice. Police acting as judge and enforcer blur the lines of law. Violence becomes a method of control rather than a breach of rights. This mindset perpetuates abuse and weakens public trust in law enforcement.

Caste Dynamics in Custodial Abuse

The victim’s identity as a Dalit was sidelined in legal reasoning. The court demanded explicit proof of caste motivation to apply the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This narrow interpretation ignores structural caste power that enables violence. Dalits and other marginalised groups suffer disproportionately in custody, reflecting systemic discrimination.

Judicial Precedents and Enforcement Gaps

Supreme Court rulings have stressed safeguards in detention and limits on police force. Yet custodial deaths persist, especially among Dalits, Adivasis, and the poor. Investigations often lack independence and transparency. Enforcement of legal protections remains inconsistent, allowing abuses to continue unchecked.

Language and Legal Reasoning in Custodial Violence

Judicial language shapes policy and public perception. Describing violence as teaching a lesson sends a message that some brutality is acceptable. This weakens constitutional values of dignity and equality. Courts must reject such rationalisations and insist on strict accountability. Violence in custody should be treated as criminal, not disciplinary.

Need for Structural Reforms

Robust application of the SC/ST Act is essential to address caste-based violence. Independent bodies must oversee investigations and enforce procedural safeguards. The judiciary must challenge institutional norms that permit custodial abuse. Upholding constitutional rights requires rejecting authoritarian impulses disguised as correction.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Discuss in the light of India’s constitutional framework how custodial violence challenges the rule of law and fundamental rights.
2. Critically examine the role of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in addressing caste-based violence in India.
3. Explain the impact of judicial language and reasoning on police accountability and public trust in the criminal justice system.
4. With suitable examples, discuss the challenges and reforms needed to ensure independent investigation of human rights violations by law enforcement agencies.

Answer Hints:

1. Discuss in the light of India’s constitutional framework how custodial violence challenges the rule of law and fundamental rights.

1. Custodial violence violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution.
2. It undermines the principle of equality before law (Article 14) by disproportionately affecting marginalized groups.
3. Violence in custody breaches procedural safeguards and due process, eroding rule of law.
4. State’s duty under Article 39A to ensure justice is compromised by police brutality.
5. Judicial tolerance or rationalization of such violence weakens constitutional accountability mechanisms.
6. Custodial deaths reflect systemic abuse of power, challenging the state’s monopoly on legitimate use of force.

2. Critically examine the role of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in addressing caste-based violence in India.

1. The SC/ST Act criminalizes caste-motivated atrocities and aims to protect marginalized communities.
2. Courts often demand explicit proof of caste motivation, limiting the Act’s effectiveness.
3. Structural caste power and implicit discrimination often remain unaddressed under narrow legal interpretations.
4. Many Dalit victims of custodial violence fail to get justice due to evidentiary and procedural hurdles.
5. The Act requires robust enforcement and judicial sensitivity to caste dynamics for meaningful impact.
6. Judicial reluctance to apply the Act fully perpetuates systemic caste-based impunity.

3. Explain the impact of judicial language and reasoning on police accountability and public trust in the criminal justice system.

1. Judicial framing of violence as teaching a lesson normalizes custodial brutality and weakens accountability.
2. Language shapes legal reasoning, influencing policy and enforcement priorities.
3. Such reasoning blurs the line between lawful correction and criminal abuse of power.
4. It sends a message that some violence by police is understandable, eroding public trust.
5. Judicial endorsement of extra-legal punishment undermines constitutional values of dignity and due process.
6. Clear, principled language is essential to reinforce rule of law and deter police excesses.

4. With suitable examples, discuss the challenges and reforms needed to ensure independent investigation of human rights violations by law enforcement agencies.

1. Investigations are often conducted by police themselves, leading to conflicts of interest and lack of impartiality.
2. Examples – Custodial deaths and torture cases repeatedly show weak enforcement despite Supreme Court guidelines (e.g., D.K. Basu case).
3. Need for independent oversight bodies with statutory powers to investigate police misconduct.
4. Strengthening procedural safeguards like mandatory FIR registration, video recording, and medical examination at arrest.
5. Judicial monitoring and timely trials to ensure accountability and deterrence.
6. Capacity building and sensitization of law enforcement on human rights and constitutional limits.