Are existing mechanisms effective in preventing custodial violence?

Why does custodial violence persist despite statutory security measures and Supreme Court guidelines?

Anoop Surendranath: India has signed, but has not confirmed the United Nations Conference against torture, and a stand-alone lacks domestic law torture. This reflects the lack of political will to implement the obligations of international human rights. However, more pressure anxiety lies in institutional institutional culture that normally normalizes violence in custody and even justifies it. Police personnel often see such violence as an essential means to achieve justice, especially when the formal legal process is seen as slow and ineffective. The public response to custodial violence is equally inconsistent and is often shaped by the nature of the case. For example, while the recent incident has expressed widespread resentment, in 2019, four people accused of raping and killing a veterinarian allegedly near Hyderabad were murdered, which was met with a public festival. There is also a spectacular absence of official data on custodial violence. As a result, the accountability mechanism remains weak.

What factors contribute to institutional culture that reduces the cruelty of the police?

M. Sirinivasan: The harsh hierarchical structure of police forces, combined with a high -pressure work environment, promotes a culture in which aggression is often valued. Mainstream films often glorify vigilance justice. In many cases of custodial violence, instead of facing disciplinary action, derogatory officers are rewarded with promotion.

Anoop Surendranath: Custodial violence should not be rejected as some ‘bad apples’ functions within the system. Such behavior is abolished by social hierarchy and a permanent colonial mentality within the police, where the public, especially marginalized communities are not seen as citizens, but subjects have to be controlled. Some bodies are seen with regular doubt and subjected to increased monitoring and force. In this structure, policing is not about serving the population, but about extending the right over it.

What improvements are required to change such popular approaches?

M. Srinivasan: It is important to implement strong training programs that not only equip police personnel with modern policing methods, but also make them sensitive to their own inherent prejudices. Third-degree torture is often inconsistent on petty criminals, while white-collar criminals are rarely subjected to such treatment. There is also an immediate need to adopt scientific inquiry techniques. Most police officers lack adequate training in contemporary investigative methods and forensic equipment, and often have reluctance to cooperate with external experts such as forensic experts and mental health professionals. Another significant improvement, supported by multiple stakeholders, is the disintegration of petty crimes, especially crimes related to minor assets. This arrest will limit arbitrary use of powers and will help ensure that custodial detention is reserved for extraordinary cases.

In 2020, the Supreme Court mandated the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations and confirmed the rights of the victims to reach the footage. How effectively these directions have been implemented?

Anoop Surendranath, Paramveer Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh (2020) Decision is an excellent example of the Supreme Court that determines technical solutions to deeply confuse institutional problems. In fact, compliance with its instructions is minimal. More importantly, as seen in the Ajit Kumar case, torture functions are often outside police stations. Even where cameras are installed, a common complaint is that they are easily non-functional when the family wants to reach the family footage. This contributes to the continuous spread of illegal detention, with arrest dates and repeatedly manipulated in police records. Ultimately, the effectiveness of any improvement rests on political will and institutional ability to implement it.

The Law Commission has recommended a provision to introduce a provision that reverses the burden of evidence in such cases. Do you think it can increase accountability?

Anoop Surendranath: Introduction to the estimate of a reconstruction in evidence law will be an important step towards accountability. However, people who are often subject to such violence are usually from weak communities. Real questions, then, we are able to reach them to legal and constitutional remedies available. It is unrealistic to expect the victims or their families to navigate the labyrinth of legal processes on their own. Our justice system often tests the flexibility of those who should protect it. Therefore, while legal reforms are important, without parallel efforts to empower weaker communities and reduce systemic obstacles, the discovery of justice will be a difficult fight.

Do the judicial magistrates, as the first line of defense against the excess of the police, discharge their duties to prevent such abuses?

Anoop Surendranath: The statutory requirement to produce an accused before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest is a significant security against the excesses of the police. However, it is deeply related to how much this process is complete. Magistrates often fail to complete their intended role, including to examine the base for arrest, physically examining the accused for signs of torture, and to expose any evidence of misconduct to them meaningfully entangled with them. Even Medico-Classic examinations often decrease in a formality. The higher judiciary has reduced to addressing laps in the Magistrate overs. This systemic failure contributes to low sentence rates in custodial torture and deaths.

Another concern is a regular entry of torture-based evidence in the legal process. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is particularly problematic. While the law excludes the confession made by the police, it allows the use of the recovered materials as a result of such confession. These flaws enable the continuous use of custodial torture, as tremendous confessions can still produce evidence that are acceptable in court.

In Prakash Singh vs India How effective is this institutional guard?

Anoop Surendranath: Most states have failed to establish these officers. Where they are present, their credibility is compromised to involve police officers’ services as members. This reflects a broad pattern in which judicial instructions receive very few meaningful compliance from the state governments. It also raises serious questions about the judiciary’s ability to implement its orders.

Can community policing or more civil society participation help in curbing such practices?

M. Sirinivasan: Absolutely. Awareness campaign under the leadership of media, educational institutions and civil society organizations can play an important role in informing people about their constitutional rights and mechanisms available for prevention. An increase in public investigation of custodial practices can also cause pressure for systemic reforms. At the same time, for community policing to be effective, it is necessary to clearly define the role of community representatives and ensure that they are properly trained to engage creatively with law enforcement.

New enacted criminal laws expand the permissible period of police custody. Can it increase the risk of custodial torture?

Anoop Surendranath: Definitely. The rhetoric around new criminal laws as a tool of “dicolonization” is largely superficial. There has been no meaningful change in the dynamics of the inherent power between the police and the citizens. Instead, these laws continue to strengthen a policing model contained in control, force and doubt. The provision to increase the period of police custody is particularly disturbing, as it increases the risk of custodial torture. The irony is that some of these freedom reforms are more regressive and punitive than colonial laws they claim to change.

He said, there is a welcome change. Under the new Indian Municipal Security Code, which replaces the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the government will have to decide within 120 days whether to be approved to prosecute a public officer or not. If it fails to do so, it is allowed, allowing the test to move forward. This provision can help prevent the officers to prevent unfair delay in justifying the officers.

To listen to the conversation In The Hindu Parle Podcast