Custodial violence persists in India not merely due to individual misconduct but because of structural gaps in law, accountability, and judicial architecture. Examine this statement in the light of recent developments in capital sentencing jurisprudence.

Question

PocketIAS · Accepted Answer

Introduction

Custodial violence in India reflects systemic deficiencies rather than isolated aberrations. Recent shifts in capital sentencing jurisprudence, emphasising fairness and due process, highlight similar structural concerns in the criminal justice system.

Structural Gaps Enabling Custodial Violence

Legal deficiencies: Absence of a standalone anti-torture law despite Article 21 protections and India’s non-ratification of UNCAT.
Weak accountability mechanisms: Low conviction rates of police personnel; reliance on Section 197 CrPC sanction.
Investigative bias: Police-led investigations into custodial deaths compromise impartiality.
Poor prison oversight: Overcrowding and inadequate monitoring of detention facilities.

Judicial and Institutional Shortcomings

Delayed justice: Prolonged trials dilute deterrence.
Inadequate enforcement of safeguards: Guidelines in DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) and Prakash Singh (police reforms) remain under-implemented.
Limited victim compensation and witness protection.

Insights from Capital Sentencing Jurisprudence

Shift towards procedural fairness: Supreme Court (e.g., Manoj v. State of MP, 2022) mandates comprehensive mitigation analysis before awarding death penalty.
Recognition of systemic bias: Courts acknowledge socio-economic vulnerabilities of accused.
Individualised sentencing: Moves away from arbitrary application of “rarest of rare” doctrine.
Due process emphasis: Highlights need for fairness at every stage—investigation, trial, and sentencing.

Linkage Between Custodial Violence and Sentencing Trends

Coercive investigation practices undermine fair trials and sentencing integrity.
Structural inequities affecting accused (poverty, lack of legal aid) are common to both issues.
Judicial sensitivity in capital cases underscores the need for similar rigor in custodial oversight.

Way Forward

Enact anti-torture legislation and ratify UNCAT.
Independent investigative mechanisms for custodial crimes.
Police and prison reforms ensuring accountability and transparency.
Strengthening legal aid and forensic-based investigations.

Conclusion

Custodial violence and inconsistencies in capital sentencing both stem from deep-rooted structural flaws. Addressing these requires embedding accountability, transparency, and due process across the criminal justice system.

Comments (0)