In The Name Of Justice - A Critical Examination Of Custodial Torture And Police Accountability In India
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION
OF CUSTODIAL TORTURE AND POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY IN INDIA
Sudhanshu R. Kamble, Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Savitribai Phule Pune University
ABSTRACT
Custodial torture remains one of the most appalling violations of human rights in India, deeply embedded within the institutional structure and operational culture of the police system. This paper explores the complex socio-institutional dynamics that perpetuate the practice of torture by focusing on the internal perspective of law enforcement. It examines how hierarchical pressures, performance-driven policing, inadequate training, and political interference contribute to a culture where torture is normalized as a tool of expedience. Drawing upon insights from police officers, judicial pronouncements, and contemporary research the paper highlights how institutional dysfunction, rather than individual deviance, often drives custodial abuse.
Further, it analyses the shortcomings in police training, accountability mechanisms, and working conditions that foster an environment where human rights violations can occur with impunity. The paper argues for comprehensive reform, including the modernisation of training and education, improved working conditions, and strengthened judicial oversight. A key recommendation is the enactment of a specific anti-torture law in alignment with the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), which India has signed but not yet ratified. Such legislation would provide a robust legal framework to deter custodial violence and ensure accountability. Through a synthesis of analysis of the ‘Status of Policing in India Report 2025’, this research emphasizes the urgent need to transform policing culture from one rooted in coercion to one anchored in professionalism, legality, and human dignity.
By addressing both systemic flaws and individual accountability, the paper offers a roadmap toward eliminating custodial torture and rebuilding public trust in law enforcement institutions. It concludes that only through a committed and multi-dimensional reform agenda can the Indian state uphold its constitutional promise of justice and
safeguard the fundamental rights of its citizens. Keywords: Custodial Torture, Police Reform, Human Rights Violations, Judicial Oversight, Law Enforcement Accountability “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. ”1 — Universal Declaration of Human Rights Introduction Despite being founded on the ideals of dignity and personal liberty, India’s constitutional promises often ring hollow in the dark corners of its police stations. Custodial torture remains a harsh reality, where detainees are routinely subjected to beatings, threats, and even fatal violence. Legal safeguards meant to prevent such abuse are in place—but in practice, they are often ignored, poorly enforced, or outright circumvented.
This contradiction between the law and what actually happens on the ground reveals a deeper crisis: how can a democratic state committed to the rule of law continue to allow a practice so clearly at odds with human rights? The persistence of custodial torture reflects not just individual wrongdoing, but structural failures in policing and legal accountability. While courts have laid down important guidelines and statutory protections exist, the system continues to fall short of delivering justice to victims or deterring abuse. It is this gap—between legal norms and lived reality—that this paper seeks to critically examine. Despite constitutional and legal guarantees, the statistics paint a grim picture.
According to recent data published by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), there are 259 pending cases of deaths in police custody and around 2210 cases of death in judicial custody. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reports dozens of custodial deaths annually, but these figures are widely considered underestimates due to underreporting, classification ambiguities, and fear of retaliation. Often, deaths are attributed to suicide, natural causes, or illness, obscuring the role of torture. For instance, between 2017 and 2022, NHRC registered over 2,000 custodial deaths, yet only a handful led to prosecution or administrative action. This disparity reflects a deep-seated culture of impunity, where custodial violence is normalized and 1 Article 5, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 5, G. A. Res. 217 A (III), U. N. Doc. A/810 (Dec. 10, 1948)
justice for victims is elusive. Rather than being outliers, such cases indicate systemic dysfunction—where accountability is diluted through procedural delays, institutional bias, and opaque investigations. The prevalence of custodial torture and the lack of effective redress mechanisms have contributed to an erosion of public trust in law enforcement. For many citizens, particularly those from marginalized castes, religious minorities, and economically disadvantaged communities, the police represent not safety but fear. This perception has a direct bearing on the legitimacy of state institutions and democratic governance. In a system where victims are discouraged from lodging complaints, witnesses are intimidated, and legal proceedings are drawn out, the message is clear: the state often protects the torturer more than the tortured.
This alienation not only fuels distrust in the criminal justice system but also perpetuates a cycle of violence and silence. The legitimacy crisis facing the Indian police is not merely moral or symbolic—it has legal consequences, as it undermines the foundational principle of equality before the law and access to justice for all. While official systems have struggled to address or even acknowledge the full extent of custodial torture, civil society actors like journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders, and Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) have played a critical role in bringing these abuses in the limelight. Investigative journalism has often exposed chilling accounts of illegal detentions, forced confessions, and custodial deaths, often backed by evidence such as leaked videos or autopsy reports.
Social media platforms, despite their limitations, have amplified voices that would otherwise remain unheard, and have catalysed public pressure for action in high-profile cases. While such efforts have occasionally led to public inquiries or policy discussions, they also underscore the state’s reluctance to act unless compelled by external scrutiny. The role of civil society, though indispensable, cannot substitute for institutional accountability mechanisms that must be built into the legal and administrative framework. Understanding Custodial Torture Custodial torture refers to acts of violence, physical or psychological—inflicted on individuals in police or judicial custody, often with the aim of extracting confessions, punishing, or intimidating.
While the term lacks a uniform definition under Indian law, its essence is understood through constitutional interpretations, judicial pronouncements, and international human rights instruments.
The most widely accepted definition of torture is articulated under Article 1(1) of the United Nations Convention Against Torture2, which defines torture as ‘any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
’ Torture was among the earliest acts to be categorically prohibited under international human rights law, with Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)3, adopted in 1948, explicitly denouncing it. The foundational values reflected in the UDHR, particularly the commitment to safeguarding fundamental rights, are deeply embedded in the Indian Constitution. Like the absolute ban on slavery, the prohibition of torture is recognised as a jus cogens norm in international law—meaning it holds a peremptory status that cannot be derogated from, not even during states of emergency. While the majority of countries have ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), adopted in 1984, and enacted corresponding domestic legislation, India continues to lag behind, having not ratified the treaty despite multiple discussions in Parliament over the years.
The origins of custodial torture in India can be traced to colonial policing structures that prioritized control over rights. The Colonial legislation of 18614, which was enacted after the
1857 revolt, institutionalized a system designed more for maintaining imperial authority than
for public service. Despite constitutional guarantees post-independence, the structural remnants of this colonial mindset persist, often legitimizing coercive practices in the name of investigation. India signed the UN Convention Against Torture in 1997 but has yet to ratify it, primarily due to the absence of comprehensive domestic legislation that criminalizes torture in line with international standards. In 2010, the Prevention of Torture Bill was introduced and passed in 2 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984,
1465 U.N.T.S. 85.
3 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III), at 71 (Dec. 10, 1948)
4 The Police Act, 1861
the Lok Sabha but lapsed in the Rajya Sabha. Subsequently, the Rajya Sabha referred the matter to the Select Committee on the Prevention of Torture Bill, which submitted its report in 2010, highlighting critical flaws in the proposed legislation and recommending key amendments. 5 The Law Commission of India, in its 273rd Report (2017)6, strongly advocated for a standalone anti-torture law and emphasized that India’s failure to ratify UNCAT weakens its moral authority to raise human rights issues on global platforms. Despite such endorsements and the judiciary’s repeated urgings, no concrete legislative progress has been made, leaving a glaring void in the domestic legal framework to address custodial torture effectively.
As India does not have a codified or standalone definition of custodial torture in statutory law, it is indirectly addressed through the Constitutional provision which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, interpreted by courts to rightfully include the right against torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. 7 When widely interpreted, Article 20(3)8 which provides for protection against self-incrimination and Article 22(1)9 which provides for right to legal counsel and protection against arbitrary arrest, are relevant when it comes to the aspects of police/custodial torture. The Supreme Court of India has recognized torture as a blatant violation of human dignity and laid down preventive guidelines in landmark case of D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal. 10 These guidelines emphasize procedural safeguards to prevent custodial torture and abuse of arrest powers.
They mandate clear identification of arresting officers, preparation of a memo of arrest attested by witnesses, and timely communication of the arrest to relatives or friends. Detainees must be informed of their rights, including access to legal counsel and medical examination every 48 hours. Arrests must be documented, reported, and monitored through police control rooms. These guidelines aim to ensure transparency, accountability, and uphold the constitutional rights to life, liberty, and dignity. 5 The Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010, Bill No. 58 of 2010, Lok Sabha, https://prsindia. org/billtrack/preventionof-torture-bill-2010. 6 Law Commission of India, 273rd Report, Implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment Through Legislation (Oct. 2017), https://lawcommissionofindia. nic. in/reports/Report273.
pdf.
7 Article 21, The Constitution of India, 1950.
8 Article 20(3), The Constitution of India, 1950.
9 Article 22(1), The Constitution of India, 1950.
10 D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610
Forms of Torture Custodial torture manifests in diverse and often brutal forms, ranging from overt physical abuse to more insidious psychological and sexual methods. Understanding these modalities is essential to grasp the full scale of violations endured by detainees under police custody. In the Indian context, such torture is routinely employed to extract confessions, intimidate suspects, or simply assert dominance and control. 11 Physical torture remains the most visible and frequently reported form of torture. Victims are often beaten with belts, rods, or wooden sticks, subjected to electric shocks, or forced into stress positions for prolonged periods. These acts often occur behind closed doors, away from public or judicial scrutiny. Psychological torture can be equally debilitating.
It involves sustained verbal abuse, threats to the victim or their family members, denial of sleep, blindfolding, and solitary confinement. In many instances, detainees are subjected to mock executions or made to witness the torture of fellow inmates. These tactics are aimed at instilling fear and compliance, frequently pushing the detainee to make false confessions or admissions under duress. The trauma resulting from psychological abuse can last long after physical injuries have healed. Sexual torture, though often underreported due to stigma and fear of reprisal, represents a particularly egregious violation. 12 Detainees, regardless of gender, may be stripped naked, groped, or subjected to invasive and degrading acts. Women and transgender persons are especially vulnerable, with numerous reports indicating rape, molestation, or threats thereof while in custody.
The use of sexualized violence further reflects deeply embedded patriarchal and casteist power structures within policing institutions. Together, these forms of torture highlight the pressing need for institutional reforms, greater accountability mechanisms, and the robust enforcement of legal safeguards to uphold the dignity and rights of individuals in state custody. 13 The Roots of Police Torture: Psychological and Societal Factors The psychology of police officers is a key factor in the prevalence of custodial torture. Police 11 Torture in India, ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, http://www. humanrights. asia/tortures/torture-in-india/ (last visited Apr 14, 2025). Meenakshi Ganguly, Broken System,
HUMAN
RIGHTS
WATCH
(2009), https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/08/04/broken-system/dysfunction-abuse-and-impunity-indian-police (last visited Apr 14, 2025).
13 INDIA: ANNUAL REPORT ON TORTURE 2020, National Campaign Against Torture 2020,
https://www.uncat.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/IndiaTortureReport2020.pdf (last visited Apr 14, 2025)
officers, much like other individuals, are influenced by a combination of personal characteristics, organizational culture, and societal expectations that can sometimes foster abusive behaviour. Several psychological factors contribute to a culture of abuse within law enforcement, which in turn facilitates the occurrence of custodial torture. Authoritarianism refers to a personality trait or ideological orientation characterized by a strong belief in hierarchy, order, and obedience to authority. 14 In police officers, this can manifest as a rigid adherence to rules and an elevated sense of duty to maintain control, often to the point of excessive use of force. Officers with authoritarian personalities are more likely to accept the idea of using violence or torture as a means of maintaining order and extracting confessions.
Such individuals view dissent or disobedience not only as a challenge to authority but as a threat that must be immediately suppressed. This psychological predisposition can be exacerbated by the nature of police training, which often emphasizes strict discipline and respect for authority. Over time, officers who subscribe to authoritarian values may come to view detainees or suspects as subordinates who are inherently deserving of punishment or coercion. When these officers encounter situations that demand the exertion of authority, their natural inclination to resort to force and intimidation may come into play, leading to custodial torture as an accepted or normalized tool in their policing methods. 15 The power imbalance between police officers and detainees or accused is another psychological driver of custodial torture.
Police officers often hold a unique position of power, having the ability to control the fate of individuals under their custody. This power, particularly in situations where suspects are detained or restrained, can give officers a sense of invulnerability, which can encourage abuse. The psychology of power can lead to what is sometimes referred to as the “corruption of power. ”16 When individuals experience unchecked authority, they may begin to view their power as a tool for personal control and dominance. This can foster a mindset where the use of violence, intimidation, or torture becomes an acceptable means of exerting control over suspects or extracting information. The sense of authority that police officers wield often extends beyond the courtroom or formal legal Authoritarianism | Definition, History, Examples, & Facts | Britannica, (2025), https://www. britannica.
com/topic/authoritarianism (last visited Apr 14, 2025). 15 The Authoritarian Specter, HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS, https://www. hup. harvard. edu/books/9780674053052 (last visited Apr 14, 2025). How (and Why) Power Corrupts People | Psychology Today, available at https://www. psychologytoday. com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/202402/how-and-why-power-corruptspeople (last visited Apr 14, 2025).
processes, and easily spill over into illegal and abusive practices within the confines of police stations and interrogation rooms. The corrupting effect of power is often compounded by a lack of oversight or accountability within the police force. When officers perceive that they will not face significant consequences for their actions, they may feel emboldened to misuse their power. This further entrenches the use of torture as an acceptable method of obtaining information, regardless of its legality or the moral implications. Another aspect which emboldens this belief is the political backing which police officers usually receive, protecting them from any possible backlash from relevant authorities. Dehumanization is another critical psychological factor contributing to custodial torture.
When police officers view suspects as less than human or as inherently dangerous, they are more likely to justify the use of extreme measures, such as torture, to extract confessions or punish individuals. 17 This can occur when officers perceive suspects as part of an “us versus them” mentality, wherein those in authority view themselves as morally superior and the detainees and accused persons as undeserving of rights or dignity. Dehumanization often occurs when officers categorize individuals based on stereotypes, such as race, class, or social status. In India, casteism also plays a major part when it comes to determining how accused from backward and tribal classes are treated.
For example, individuals from marginalized communities, those who are accused of serious crimes, or those who display resistance during arrest are more likely to be seen as “other” or less worthy of humane treatment. Once a suspect is viewed in this way, the psychological barrier to using violence or force diminishes significantly, as the officer may see their actions as justified or even necessary for maintaining order. The process of dehumanization is often reinforced by police culture and peer dynamics. In some law enforcement environments, brutality may be tacitly accepted or even encouraged. Officers may witness or participate in acts of torture without any meaningful intervention from superiors or colleagues, which reinforces the belief that such behaviour is a normal part of the job.
As this behaviour becomes ingrained in police culture, officers may become desensitized to the suffering of detainees, viewing their actions as routine or justifiable rather than as human rights violations. The psychological factors of authoritarianism, power dynamics, and dehumanization significantly shape the culture of police torture. These elements not only affect individual 17 Nick Haslam & Steve Loughnan, Dehumanization and Infrahumanization, 65 ANNU REV PSYCHOL 399 (2014).
officers’ behaviour but also contribute to a broader systemic issue in law enforcement. Understanding these psychological underpinnings is critical for addressing custodial torture and ensuring accountability within the police force. By addressing the psychological profiles of officers, as well as the organizational and cultural norms that perpetuate these dynamics, efforts to reform police practices and prevent abuse may become more effective. Ground Realities of Custodial Violence: An Analysis of the Status of Policing in India Report 202518 The Status of Policing in India Report 2025: Police Torture and (Un)Accountability, jointly published by Common Cause and the Lokniti Programme of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS)19, presents one of the most comprehensive examinations of police attitudes towards torture and violence in India to date.
Grounded in a mixed-method approach which blends quantitative surveys with qualitative interviews. The report delves deep into the psychological, structural, and institutional factors that normalise custodial torture within the policing framework. The report includes Survey of over 8,200 police personnel across 17 states and Union Territories, including voices from constables to IPS officers, wherein the study offers unique insights into how deeply embedded violent practices are within everyday policing. It further incorporates the perspectives of accountability actors such as doctors, lawyers, and judges, whose interactions with custodial institutions add critical layers to the understanding of systemic abuse.
Alarmingly, the findings reveal that a substantial number of police personnel view the use of violence as both necessary and justified, an indication of how custodial torture has been internalised as a tool of law enforcement rather than an aberration from it. This chapter engages with the report’s key findings to examine not only the persistence of torture but the institutional mindset that enables and sustains it. According to the report, 20% of the police personnel feel that it is “very important” for the police to use tough methods to crate fear amongst the public, and another 35% of the police personnel think it’s “somewhat important” to use tough methods to create fear amongst public
18 Common Cause, Common Cause India | Status of Policing in India Report 2025: Police To,
https://www.commoncause.in/page.php?id=204 (last visited Apr 15, 2025).
19 CSDS |, https://www.csds.in/ (last visited Apr 15, 2025).
and the accused or detainees. 20 Now this in itself is a very dangerous trend as normalisation of using "tough methods" to instill fear, as endorsed by significant number of police personnel surveyed, poses a grave threat to the rule of law and due process in India. Such attitudes undermine the constitutional presumption of innocence, encourage extra-legal conduct, and foster an environment where coercion takes precedence over investigation. This approach corrodes public trust in legal institutions and weakens the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. In the long term, it risks transforming law enforcement into a force of intimidation rather than protection, eroding democratic accountability. Another alarming statistic from the report state that 22% of police personnel believe that killing ‘dangerous criminals’ is better than giving them a legal trial.
Report further clarifies that more experienced and upper subordinate officers are relatively less likely to agree with the statement indicating that training and exposure may play a role in upholding constitutional norms. Nevertheless, the widespread endorsement of this belief among lower ranked police personnels reflects systemic issues in police recruitment, training, and accountability. It signals a failure to inculcate respect for the rule of law within the police force. This mindset also endangers democratic institutions by blurring the lines between law enforcement and vigilante justice. If allowed to persist, such views could further erode public confidence in the justice system.
The revelation that 30% of police personnel justify the use of 'third-degree methods, which typically include physical and psychological torture in serious criminal cases, and 9% even in petty offences, raises grave concerns about the normalization of custodial violence within law enforcement. The justification of such practices, especially among those who frequently conduct interrogations and even some IPS officers, points to an entrenched culture of brutality masked as effective policing. The fact that torture is seen not as an aberration but as a legitimate investigative tool in the eyes of many within the police is deeply alarming. It undermines the principle of presumption of innocence, distorts the truth-seeking function of interrogation, and contributes to wrongful convictions.
More importantly, it perpetuates a cycle of fear and mistrust between the police and the public, making policing less effective and more prone to abuse. The Status of Policing in India Report 2025 also brings to light critical perspectives from professionals closely involved in the criminal justice system, i. e. lawyers, judges, and doctors,
20 Common Cause, supra note 17.
highlighting systemic enablers of custodial torture and the lack of meaningful accountability. Interviewees unanimously pointed out that victims of torture largely belong to socioeconomically disadvantaged and marginalised groups such as Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, illiterate individuals, and slum dwellers. This reveals how caste, class, and community biases intersect with policing practices, making certain groups more vulnerable to abuse. 21 Doctors too expressed concern about the quality of medical examinations conducted on arrested persons. Many pointed out that such examinations are typically carried out by general or unrelated specialists such as anaesthesiologists or ophthalmologists due to a serious lack of trained forensic experts, especially in district and taluk hospitals.
This results in medical reports that often overlook or misidentify signs of torture, thereby weakening the evidentiary foundation for accountability. Further, the report underscores the passive role of magistrates in preventing custodial torture. Lawyers and retired judges who were interviewed expressed strong opposition to making confessions to police admissible in court. They emphasized that doing so would dangerously incentivise the use of coercive or violent interrogation tactics, putting the lives and rights of accused persons at grave risk. Overall, these insights from professionals reveal a systemic failure across institutions be it policing, medical, and judicial which enables custodial torture and impedes justice.
The findings call for urgent reforms, such as mandatory judicial oversight, training of medical professionals in forensic examination, and stronger legal safeguards to protect the most vulnerable sections of society. The Police Perspective: Institutional Culture, Pressure, and the Justification of Torture Understanding the police perspective is crucial in comprehensively addressing the issue of custodial torture, as it provides insight into the complex interplay between institutional pressures, ingrained cultural practices, and individual attitudes. Police officers often operate within a system that prioritises efficiency and results, sometimes at the expense of ethical considerations. By examining how these pressures shape police conduct, identifying the root causes of custodial torture and subsequently working towards meaningful reforms can be possible.
Recognising the perspective of law enforcement not only allows for a more balanced view but also aids in designing solutions that address both the consequences and the systemic factors contributing to these violations.
21 Id.
In police forces, the hierarchical structure plays a significant role in shaping the behaviour and decision making of officers at all levels. Senior officers often hold considerable power and influence over their subordinates, setting the tone for how operations are carried out. This chain of command can create immense pressure on lower-ranking officers to meet the expectations placed upon them, particularly in high-stakes situations where performance is closely scrutinized. These expectations may include solving cases swiftly, maintaining high arrest rates, or obtaining confessions to build a case. In such a context, subordinate officers may feel compelled to resort to aggressive tactics, including the use of torture, as a means of meeting these performance demands.
The pressure to demonstrate effectiveness and prove loyalty to superiors can lead officers to justify unethical or illegal methods, especially when they believe that failing to comply with these expectations may result in professional repercussions. This pressure-cooker environment can perpetuate a cycle of abuse, where subordinate officers are not only encouraged to prioritise results over ethics but also see their actions as sanctioned by their higher-ups, even if those actions are harmful or illegal. The institutional culture fosters an environment in which achieving the desired outcomes is often placed above adherence to human rights or legal processes, ultimately compromising both the integrity of the police force and the rights of those in custody.
22 For many lower-rank officers, failure to produce results can mean career stagnation, punitive transfers, or public humiliation at the hands of superiors. Most of the times, police officers are work under political as well as public pressure in solving particular cases. 23 Consequently, torture becomes a coping mechanism, a way to meet professional targets and appease superiors, ultimately safeguard one’s career in the process. This dynamic is further aggravated by the absence of functional internal oversight and a culture that tacitly condones the use of force as long as it produces outcomes. The normalisation of this practice within the force, combined with institutional silence and legal inertia, transforms torture from an aberration into an unofficial survival strategy.
In this light, custodial violence is not simply a matter of individual misconduct, but a symptom of deeper institutional dysfunctions that demand urgent reform. The police perspective on the prevalence of torture can be significantly influenced by 22 Hendra Wirawan, Toetik Koesbardiati & Sutinah, Institutional and Social Pressure in Violating the Police Code of Ethics, 18 JURNAL ILMU KEPOLISIAN 331 (2024).
23 New study finds 72% of India’s police officers have felt political pressure during probes,
https://theprint.in/india/new-study-finds-72-of-indias-police-officers-have-felt-political-pressure-duringprobes/283050/ (last visited Apr 15, 2025).
inadequate training and systemic flaws within the Indian policing system. A research paper by Md. Imran Wahab, IPS, Inspector General of Police, West Bengal24 highlights several critical issues contributing to police officers' reliance on extreme measures, such as torture, to extract confessions or resolve cases. The research emphasizes that police training in India often fails to equip officers with the necessary skills and knowledge to handle complex situations lawfully and ethically. This lack of effective training, coupled with outdated training methods, results in officers resorting to shortcuts, such as third-degree tactics, which are seen as quick ways to get results, especially under the immense pressure to solve cases rapidly. A significant issue identified in the paper is the failure to incorporate modern, ethical law enforcement practices into police training curricula.
Officers are often trained with a focus on physical strength and obedience, rather than critical thinking, legal knowledge, and human rights awareness. As a result, police officers may not fully understand the legal and ethical implications of their actions, leading them to justify torture as a necessary tool for professional survival. The paper also points out that police training is often not updated to reflect contemporary issues such as cybercrime or human rights standards, which exacerbates the risk of officers engaging in unlawful practices. In summary, the prevalence of police torture in India is not only a consequence of a few rogue officers but a systemic issue rooted in the lack of effective training, the hierarchical pressure on subordinates, and the normalization of aggressive tactics within police culture.
Addressing these issues through comprehensive reform in police training and leadership is essential to curbing the widespread use of torture and ensuring that the police function within the bounds of the law and human rights. Reforms and Accountability: Ending the Culture of Police Torture Police reforms in India are essential to address systemic issues like police torture and corruption. Strengthening judicial oversight and enforcing stricter mechanisms for review of police actions, particularly in cases of custodial violence, are vital to curb abuse and improve policing in India. Implementing independent bodies like the NHRC to monitor police conduct, enhancing police training to prioritize human rights, and promoting community policing to build trust are also crucial steps.
Key reforms include enforcing the Prakash Singh Judgment, 24 Imran Wahab, Police Training in India: Navigating the Challenges and Forging the Future, International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR), 2024.
which advocated for restructuring police organizations to ensure autonomy, accountability, and transparency. The Prakash Singh judgment25 was a significant effort towards reforming the Indian police system, directing the implementation of reforms by 2006, later extended to 2007. Despite the Supreme Court's monitoring and subsequent committees like Justice Thomas and Justice Verma's, the reforms have not been adequately enforced. The lack of compliance by States, and the non-enforcement of the Model Police Act 2006, reveal the challenges and indifference towards police reforms, illustrating the ongoing stagnation in improving the police system in India. Reformation in the police system is still in a hunky-dory situation in India26 To curb police torture, it's crucial to alleviate the immense pressure placed on officers to produce results quickly.
High-performance expectations, such as solving cases rapidly or securing confessions, often lead officers to resort to aggressive tactics, including torture. By fostering an environment that emphasizes professionalism, mental health support, and ethical conduct, the pressures that encourage torture can be reduced. Ensuring that officers are not held accountable for meeting unrealistic goals would create a healthier work culture and decrease the likelihood of abusive practices within the force. To address the issue of solving cases quickly without resorting to torture, police can adopt investigative techniques that focus on efficiency, technology, and evidence-based methods. This includes the use of modern forensic technology, data analytics, and enhanced training in non-coercive interrogation methods.
Strengthening cooperation with other agencies and improving the flow of information between departments can help reduce bottlenecks. Additionally, creating a system of accountability for meeting performance standards without compromising ethical behaviour will encourage officers to rely on their skills and resources rather than resorting to torture for expedience. Additionally, Judicial oversight is a vital mechanism in combating police torture and ensuring accountability within law enforcement agencies. Courts, through their supervisory functions, can impose legal safeguards that prevent abuse during custody and interrogations. By mandating regular oversight of police operations, such as ensuring timely access to legal counsel for detainees, ensuring prompt appearances before a magistrate, and recording interrogations, the judiciary can prevent systemic torture.
Courts can also play an essential role in enforcing punitive measures for police officers involved in misconduct. Furthermore, judges
25 Prakash Singh & Ors vs Union of India and Ors, (2006) 8 SCC 1
26 Dr Sugato Mukherjee, POLICE REFORMS IN INDIA AN OVERVIEW, The Haryana Police Journal, Vol. 3,
2020.
can issue directives to implement reforms, contributing to better police practices and protection of individual rights. Judicial oversight serves as a check on the power of police, ensuring that investigative goals do not overshadow fundamental human rights, and fostering greater trust between the public and the justice system. This system also holds the police accountable, deters abuse, and encourages more professional law enforcement practices. Thus, effective judicial oversight can help institutionalize respect for human dignity, fairness, and justice within the police system. A report by Factly highlighted alarming data on police accountability in India, revealing that
no police personnel have been convicted for human rights violations since 2018, despite numerous allegations and custodial deaths. 27 The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data indicates that while cases of custodial deaths have declined from 118 in 2013 to 88 in 2021, the conviction rate remains dismally low. In 2021, six deaths were directly attributed to injuries sustained during police custody, marking a concerning rise from previous years. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) reported the highest number of custodial death cases in 2021–22, yet the number of cases where monetary relief was recommended has decreased, and no prosecutions have been initiated against the responsible officers. Additionally, the NHRC's recommendations for disciplinary actions against public servants have been minimal, with only 21 cases from 2016–17 to 2021–22. 28.
This systemic impunity reflects a broader issue of societal acceptance of custodial torture, underscoring the urgent need for comprehensive reforms and accountability measures within the police force as well as judicial intervention. In addressing police torture in India, a key factor contributing to its persistence is the lack of proper training and inadequate compensation for police officers. The absence of comprehensive and specialized training on human rights, lawful interrogation techniques, and ethical policing practices often results in officers resorting to coercive methods, including torture. To remedy this, it is crucial that police training be reformed to emphasize human rights, ethical conduct, and the legal boundaries within which law enforcement must operate.
Incorporating training programs that focus on alternative interrogation methods, such as 27 Data: No Conviction of Police Personnel For Human Rights Violations Since 2018, FACTLY (Feb. 28, 2023), https://factly. in/data-no-conviction-of-police-personnel-for-human-rights-violations-since-2018/ (last visited Apr 15, 2025).
28 Id.
psychological tactics and evidence-based practices, would help reduce reliance on force and violence. Furthermore, improving the pay and working conditions of police officers is vital in addressing the systemic issues within the force. Underpaid and overworked officers are often more susceptible to corruption and misconduct, including the use of torture, as they may feel a sense of frustration or desperation to meet performance expectations. Offering competitive salaries, benefits, and better working conditions would not only improve the quality of policing but also reduce the incentive to engage in illegal activities. In tandem, these reforms would contribute to the creation of a more professional, accountable, and human rights-conscious police force, thereby addressing one of the root causes of police torture in India.
In addition to institutional reforms, it is imperative that India enacts comprehensive legislation that explicitly criminalises custodial torture. Although India signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1997, it has yet to ratify the treaty or implement corresponding domestic legislation. The absence of a specific anti-torture law creates a legal vacuum, enabling systemic abuse to persist without adequate redress or deterrence. A dedicated statute aligned with UNCAT would not only fulfill India's international obligations but also provide a clear legal framework for prosecution, victim compensation, and preventive safeguards. Such a law would signal a zero-tolerance approach to custodial violence and reinforce the constitutional promise of dignity and justice for all.
Ultimately, the criminalisation of torture through dedicated legislation would mark a decisive step toward breaking the cycle of impunity and restoring public faith in the rule of law. Conclusion In conclusion, police torture remains a deeply entrenched issue in India, undermining justice, human dignity, and constitutional rights. Despite legal safeguards, the gap between law and practice perpetuates abuse of power within police institutions. The complex nature of custodial torture arises from a combination of institutional pressures, inadequate training, and systemic failures in accountability. Reports such as the Status of Policing in India Report 2025 highlight a concerning belief among police personnel that torture is justified to maintain order, underscoring the urgent need for institutional reform.
Addressing these issues requires stricter oversight, comprehensive training on human rights,
and stronger accountability mechanisms. Judicial oversight, coupled with procedural safeguards like the presence of magistrates during interrogations, is vital in curbing torture. Additionally, reforming police culture by addressing systemic problems such as underfunding, poor working conditions, and political pressures will help create a police force that prioritizes human rights. Reforming the police is not an act of resistance but a rebuilding of trust. With the right political will, institutional courage, and citizen oversight, India can shape a police force that not only enforces the law but embodies it, ensuring justice and dignity for all.