Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court, taking cognizance suo motu of recurring instances of custodial deaths and torture, issued a set of comprehensive directions to the State of Maharashtra to ensure greater police accountability, transparency in investigations, and compliance with the constitutional mandate under Article 21.
A Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Manjusha Deshpande observed that custodial violence is a direct attack on the rule of law and undermines public faith in the justice system. The Court held:
“The police are protectors of citizens, not predators. The rule of law ceases to exist when those entrusted with upholding it become violators of fundamental rights.”
The Court directed the State to implement institutional reforms within the police force, including the creation of an independent oversight mechanism, compulsory video recording of interrogations, and strict compliance with NHRC and Supreme Court guidelines.
Facts
The matter originated as a suo motu criminal public interest litigation initiated by the Bombay High Court after receiving reports about the death of a 23-year-old youth in police custody in a district police station in Maharashtra. The incident sparked public outrage and drew attention to the pattern of custodial abuse, prompting the Court to intervene.
Media reports and preliminary inquiries revealed that several police officers were allegedly involved in the incident, and the autopsy report indicated multiple injuries consistent with assault, contradicting the official claim of suicide.
The Court, deeply concerned by the recurrence of similar incidents despite existing safeguards, converted the proceedings into a suo motu PIL to examine systemic lapses in investigating custodial deaths, and to ensure compliance with judicial directives issued by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) and subsequent rulings.
Issues
- Whether the State had complied with statutory and judicial mandates governing investigation of custodial deaths.
- Whether the existing oversight mechanisms were effective in ensuring accountability of police personnel.
- What systemic reforms were necessary to prevent further instances of custodial torture and restore public faith in the criminal justice system.
Petitioner’s Arguments (Amicus Curiae)
The Amicus Curiae, appointed by the Court, submitted that custodial torture and deaths were not isolated incidents but symptomatic of a deeper institutional failure within the police system. It was pointed out that despite the detailed guidelines laid down in D.K. Basu and reaffirmed in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020), implementation remained far from satisfactory.
The Amicus noted that most police stations lacked functional CCTV cameras, and there was no standardized procedure for immediate magisterial inquiry after custodial deaths. Reports from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) indicated that Maharashtra had one of the highest numbers of custodial deaths in India in recent years.
It was further submitted that victims’ families often faced intimidation and non-cooperation from the police, leading to suppression of truth. The Amicus urged the Court to issue enforceable directions mandating independent investigation by an agency outside the local police hierarchy, preferably by the CBI or CID (Special Cell), in all cases of custodial death.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State of Maharashtra, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the government had already implemented multiple safeguards to prevent custodial violence, including the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations, establishment of human rights cells, and training modules for police personnel on lawful interrogation.
The State further claimed that departmental proceedings were initiated against erring officers, and in certain cases, FIRs were registered under Section 302 IPC against accused policemen.
However, the State conceded that there were logistical and financial constraints in ensuring full compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court and NHRC, particularly regarding maintenance of CCTV footage, power backups, and manpower for round-the-clock supervision. The State urged the Court to grant reasonable time for complete implementation.
Analysis of the Law
The Bench began by recalling the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty under Article 21, which applies with equal force to individuals in custody. The Court reaffirmed that the rights of an accused do not cease at the threshold of a police station.
Citing the landmark judgment in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Court reiterated that custodial torture constitutes a violation of human dignity and fundamental rights, and any death in police custody must be presumed to be prima facie a case of custodial violence unless proved otherwise.
The Court further referred to Paramvir Singh Saini (2020), where the Supreme Court directed installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations and lockups, with recordings to be preserved for at least 12 months, and oversight committees established at the District and State levels.
Justice Dere observed that mere issuance of government circulars was insufficient; compliance must be verifiable, institutionalized, and subject to periodic audit.
Precedent Analysis
- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 – The Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines on arrest, detention, and interrogation, mandating identification of officers, maintenance of arrest memos, and medical examination of detainees. This judgment remains the constitutional bedrock of custodial protection.
- Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020) 3 SCC 321 – Directed mandatory installation of CCTVs in all police stations and outlined the role of oversight committees. The Bombay High Court cited this case to highlight continued non-compliance.
- Re: Death of 17 Prisoners in State of Assam (2021) SC – Emphasized that custodial deaths are not only a law enforcement issue but also a public health and human rights concern, requiring immediate judicial monitoring.
- People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 10 SCC 635 – Addressed fake encounters and laid down guidelines on registration of FIRs against police officers in cases of custodial or encounter deaths.
These precedents were invoked collectively to underscore that constitutional courts bear a continuing responsibility to ensure enforcement of human rights in custody.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that despite clear judicial pronouncements, the ground reality reflected systemic apathy. It found that several police stations lacked functional CCTV systems, and oversight committees were either non-existent or non-functional.
The Bench stated that every instance of custodial death casts a shadow on the credibility of the State, emphasizing that impunity for police excesses corrodes the foundations of constitutional governance.
It held:
“The State cannot plead administrative inconvenience in protecting life. Compliance with Article 21 is not optional; it is a constitutional command.”
The Court stressed that accountability must begin from the top — police superintendents and senior officers must be held responsible for ensuring the safety of individuals in custody. It also directed that magisterial inquiries must be completed within 30 days, reports sent to the NHRC, and copies furnished to the deceased’s family.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court issued a series of binding directives:
- The State shall ensure that all police stations and interrogation centers have CCTV cameras with 24-hour recording and sufficient data storage.
- District and State-level Human Rights Oversight Committees shall be constituted within six weeks and submit quarterly compliance reports.
- Custodial death investigations shall be conducted by an independent agency not connected with the local police station.
- Post-mortem videography shall be made mandatory in all custodial death cases.
- Non-compliance by any officer shall attract personal accountability, including contempt proceedings.
The Court also requested the State Law Department to periodically publish an annual report on custodial deaths and actions taken, to promote transparency.
Implications
This judgment stands as a landmark reaffirmation of the constitutional duty to prevent custodial violence. It reinforces that:
- Article 21 applies with full force to persons in custody.
- The State’s failure to prevent torture amounts to complicity.
- Judiciary retains continuing supervisory jurisdiction to monitor compliance.
It also strengthens the jurisprudence on police accountability, shifting the focus from ad-hoc inquiry to systemic reform and transparency in law enforcement. The directions issued are likely to serve as a model framework for other States facing similar challenges.