There are many visible blood stains on the policemen’s khaki. It’s an open secret that policemen take innocent people in custody, torture, and kill them, out of sadistic pleasure. The true stories of terrorisations of people by police are more often swept under the carpet.
A Bench of Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta taking cognizance of media report published in Hindi daily Dainik Bhaskar, stating that 11 people have died in police custody in Rajasthan during the first eight months of 2025, registered a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL), on September 4, 2025, over the lack of functional CCTV cameras in police stations across the country. According to media reports, police often do not provide CCTV footage in custodial death cases. The police gave various reasons for withholding CCTV footage, including technical faults, lack of storage, ongoing investigations, or legal restrictions. The Apex Court, earlier in D.K. Basu, Paramvir Singh Saini, and Shafhi Mohammad cases, had passed directions for the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations to maintain transparency and curb the incidents of custodial torture.
The Supreme Court, yet again, on November 25, 2025, during the hearing of the suo motu PIL, reiterated that “custodial violence and deaths are a blot on the system. Now this country will not tolerate this practice. You can not have deaths in custody.” The Court has asked for the compliance affidavits from all states and UTs and posted the matter for hearing on December 16, 2025.
In D.K. Basu Vs State of West Bengal, AIR (1997) SC 610, a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices A.S. Anand and Kuldip Singh, had observed that custodial violence, including torture and deaths in lock-ups, strikes a blow at the rule of law. As such, the Court established the constitutional contours of protection in custody.
Reacting to police brutality, Justice Anand Narain Mulla of the Allahabad High Court had, in State Vs Mohammad Naim (1961) famously remarked that “there is not a single lawless group in the whole of the country whose record of crime comes anywhere near the record of that organised unit which is known as the Indian Police Force”.
During COVID days, each one of us watched the shameless ‘naked dance’ of the sadist policemen across the country where these perverts fearlessly and mercilessly had been beating citizens of all ages, status and gender. They didn’t spare even the pregnant women on roads, not letting them go without tasting the salt of their batons.
On June 19, 2020, evening, a friend of J. Bennicks informed him that his father, P. Jeyaraj, had been picked up by police for keeping the shop open during curfew. However, the CBI probe later on revealed that there was no such violation, as according to the district magistrate’s order, shops were allowed to be open till 8 PM at that time.
Bennicks went to the Sathankulam police station and saw his father being beaten up inside the police station. An altercation ensued between him and Sub-Inspector Balakrishnan. After this police “decided to teach him a lesson on how to behave.”, said the charge-sheet. Bennicks too was taken into custody and beaten up “more severely”, according to the charge-sheet.
Whenever there used to be a lull, accused Inspector S. Shridhar used to prod the staff by asking about reasons for silence and thereby instigating them further to start a fresh round of beating. Not only this, their clothes were removed to add to the brutality of the torture. Both Jeyaraj and Bennicks, turn by turn, were made to bow down on a wooden table in underwear only, then their hands and legs were held by accused policemen, so that they were not able to defend themselves”, the CBI charge sheet said.
Jeyaraj pleaded with the policemen to stop, saying he is diabetic and have high blood pressure, but the police tortured him from 07.45 PM on June 19, 2020, to 3 AM on June 20, 2020.
The CBI investigation revealed that so much blood was oozing from the wounds of Jeyaraj and Bennicks that policemen changed their clothes twice, before taking them to the hospital, and then to Court. The State government, on the directions of the Madras High Court, had entrusted the case to the CBI in July 2020, resulting in the arrest of nine policemen.
Vipul Mudgal, Director & Chief Executive of Common Cause and Rishikesh Kumar, Research Executive (Legal) said, “The Supreme Court’s suo motu cognisance in September 2025 is a salutary and long-overdue judicial response. It flags systemic failure in converting the 2020 CCTV directions into lived safeguards for detainees. The Bench’s emphasis that “the issue is of oversight” and its suggestion of fully automated control rooms to detect non-functional cameras rightly redirect attention from rhetoric to verification and continuous supervision. But while the Court’s move is welcome, it also confirms an uncomfortable truth: issuing directions is easier than ensuring durable compliance. (The continued non-compliance of the landmark Supreme Court order in the Prakash Singh Vs UoI by the State government is a case in point).
Judicial instruction on surveillance and custodial safeguards have long been part of the Court’s jurisprudence. The Basu framework established the constitutional contours of protections in custody and emphasised that safeguards must be capable of enforcement. Later decisions — notably Shafhi Mohammad, which contemplated phased, supervised roll-out and a Central Oversight Body (COB), and Paramvir Singh Saini (Dec. 2, 2020), which concretised the obligation to install CCTVs at entry/exit points, lock-ups and corridors and to set up a COB — convert abstract safeguards into a compliance architecture. Yet the Court itself has repeatedly recorded that the compliance affidavits and Action-Taken Reports filed by States/UTs “fail to disclose the exact position of CCTV cameras qua each police station,” signalling that the problem is not legal uncertainty but implementation deficit.
The experts, Vipul Mudgal and Rishikesh Kumar, pointed out, “The Status of Policing in India Report (SPIR 2025) brought out by Common Cause and Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) has consistently highlighted the same implementation and accountability gaps that the Court’s suo motu action now exposes. SPIR documents pervasive data gaps, opaque reporting by oversight bodies, weak adherence to arrest and custody procedures, and the normative culture within many police formations that normalises the use of force. The Report demonstrates that institutional compliance with procedural safeguards—already low for arrest and medical examination requirements—cannot be expected to be higher for technical interventions such as CCTV unless accompanied by governance reforms: mandatory reporting, independent audits, technical standards, maintenance protocols and real-time monitoring.
The Bench’s call for fully automated control rooms is therefore a step in the right direction, but its effectiveness will depend on complementary measures: (i) a nationally standardised technical specification and minimum recording/retention policy; (ii) a public, police-station wise registry of operational status (updated and auditable); (iii) independent third-party audits and spot checks; (iv) statutory or administrative liability for supervisory officers who allow sustained outages or tampering; and (v) integration of CCTV oversight with existing quasi-judicial bodies (NHRC, state PCAs) and judicial magistrates’ mandatory reporting mechanisms. Without this package, a suo motu docket may repeatedly surface the same failures without producing systemic correction.
“According to SPIR 2025, in 2020 the NCRB recorded 76 custodial deaths, the NHRC 90, and the National Campaign Against Torture (NCAT) 111—a disparity that itself betrays a refusal to recognise torture. NCAT found 46 per cent of deaths were due to torture, while the NCRB attributed only one to “injuries sustained during police custody due to physical assault.” More than 55 per cent of custodial deaths in 2022 occurred within 24 hours of arrest, when the detainee is entirely in police control. From 2018 to 2022, criminal cases were registered against police in only 10 per cent of deaths, charge-sheets in 12 per cent, and there were no convictions. Mandatory judicial inquiries by a judicial magistrate under section 196(2) read with section 3 of the BNSS, 2023. Over the five–year period, the percentage of cases in which judicial inquiry was ordered has declined worrisomely, from 40 per cent in 2018 to 35 per cent in 2022. These are not statistical accidents—they reveal a system that protects offenders and silences victims.”
“Legally, however, once intent or knowledge can be inferred from the facts of custody—severe injury patterns, denial of medical care, falsified records—the offence crosses from negligence to murder. Indian criminal jurisprudence recognises that mens rea can be inferred from the circumstances of custody itself. In Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta (2011) the Supreme Court held that “encounter killings are nothing but cold-blooded murders.” In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) and Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) the Court reiterated that the State and its agents are personally and vicariously liable for deaths in custody. When torture or assault is deliberate, the proper charge is not culpable homicide or negligence—it is murder.”
“The path forward is therefore dual: individual and systemic. First, individual officers found to have tortured or killed in custody must be prosecuted under Section 302 IPC without dilution. Second, institutional reform must attack the roots of brutality—independent investigation of all custodial deaths, automatic FIR registration, functional and audited CCTV coverage, and personal liability for supervisory officers who conceal or permit torture.”
When asked, “Do you agree that the Court had to intervene as the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), having its domain over the matter, has failed to deal with the most critical situation?, the experts said, “Under Indian law, every death in police custody must be promptly reported and independently investigated. Section 196(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023—which replaces Section 176(1A) of the earlier CrPC—makes it mandatory for a Judicial Magistrate to hold an inquiry in every case of death, disappearance, or rape in custody. This statutory safeguard, read with Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, seeks to ensure that deprivation of liberty never results in the loss of life without due process. Complementing this mandate, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) requires that all custodial deaths be reported within 24 hours, autopsies be video-graphed, and inquiry reports be submitted within two months. Together, these norms are meant to guarantee transparency, accountability, and deterrence against torture.”
“However, the Status of Policing in India Report (SPIR) 2025 shows a disturbing gulf between these legal safeguards and the ground reality. From 2018 to 2022, judicial inquiries were ordered in only 35 per cent of custodial death cases in 2022, down from around 40 per cent in 2018. In nearly one-fifth of cases, no inquiry—judicial or magisterial—was conducted at all, in direct violation of Section 196(2) BNSS. This chronic non-compliance exposes deep institutional apathy rather than isolated procedural lapses.”
“The report further reveals that over half of all custodial deaths occur within 24 hours of arrest, the period of absolute State control. In Gujarat, an astonishing 96 per cent of such deaths took place within the first day of detention, clearly implicating custodial torture. Yet, criminal cases were registered against police officers in barely 10 per cent of incidents, and no convictions were recorded nationwide between 2018 and 2022. These figures depict a near-total failure of internal and judicial accountability mechanisms.”
“The NHRC, constitutionally expected to act as an independent watchdog, has failed to fill this vacuum. As noted in Chapter 8 of the SPIR, the Commission relies heavily on police and State government reports and seldom undertakes independent field investigations. Its annual data are opaque and inconsistent—terms like “deaths in police action,” “encounters,” and “custodial violence” are often used interchangeably, masking the real scale of abuse. Moreover, over `64 lakh in compensation recommended by the NHRC to families of victims remains unpaid, reflecting poor State compliance. The Commission’s role has thus become largely procedural and advisory, lacking both enforcement power and operational independence. Against this backdrop, judicial intervention was not only justified but constitutionally imperative.
Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, President- Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association, said, “The Court noted that authorities routinely refused to provide CCTV footage by citing excuses of “faulty cameras,” “storage issues,” “ongoing investigations” or “confidentiality.” This suo motu action directly responded to chronic non-compliance with earlier judicial mandates intended to safeguard the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
“Unfortunately, despite these comprehensive directions, the 2025 hearings revealed almost universal non-compliance. On September 15, 2025, the Bench observed, “The issue is of oversight”, underscoring that state authorities had neutralised accountability through operational failures. The Court proposed creating centralised control rooms to detect when CCTVs were manually switched off and suggested developing AI-enabled mechanisms to ensure instant alerts for any interruption of the feed. “
In the 2020 landmark judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, (2021) 1 SCC 184, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the installation of functional CCTV cameras with night vision and audio-video recording capabilities in all police stations and offices of central investigative agencies (including CBI, NIA, ED, NCB, DRI, SFIO), ensuring comprehensive coverage. This coverage must include lock-ups, entry and exit points, corridors, reception areas, and interrogation rooms—essentially all locations where custodial interaction or detention occurs. Significantly, the Court ordered that footage must be preserved for a period large enough to allow forensic verification and victim access.
According to the Court’s July 2021 observations in the continuation of the case, CCTV recordings should be retained for a minimum of 18 months, extended beyond “at least one year” to guard against loss of evidence over time. The purpose of these requirements is to safeguard detainees’ fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing life and dignity by enhancing transparency and accountability in custodial settings, thereby deterring custodial torture and deaths.”
“The Court’s 2025 intervention draws constitutional continuity from Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, (2021) 1 SCC 184, decided on December 2, 2020, by a Bench of Justices Rohinton F. Nariman, K.M. Joseph, and Aniruddha Bose (3-Judges). The decision reaffirmed and expanded upon Shafhi Mohd. v. State of H.P., (2018) 5 SCC 311, D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (2015) 8 SCC 744 and the very first landmark case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416.”
“The Court further pressed for mandatory third-party audits, surprise inspections, and forensic validation of tamper-proofing, along with centralised data storage, ensuring that CCTVs are not under exclusive police control. It also stressed that interrogation rooms must mandatorily have CCTV coverage as these are critical zones prone to abuse.”
Terming custodial deaths as murder, Mahalakshmi said, “Definitely, while custodial violence thrives within systemic impunity, individual police personnel who inflict lethal injuries are directly culpable under Section 302 IPC (murder). Under Section 300 IPC, any act intended to cause death or bodily injury known to be likely to cause death satisfies the mens rea for murder.”
Rajan Bhagat, IPS, former DCP (Crime), Delhi Police, said, “Despite clear instructions and timelines, compliance has remained largely formalistic. Cameras were installed in many police stations, but without ensuring continuous functionality, reliable data storage, or effective monitoring.”
“The Court’s fresh intervention underlines the continuing weakness in compliance with its binding directions, and the consequent vulnerability of detainees to abuse and impunity. It simultaneously reveals the inability of existing institutional oversight bodies, notably the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), to act effectively in preventing and responding to such violations.”
Custodial deaths represent the gravest form of human rights violation in a democratic society. They are not accidental occurrences but symptomatic of deeper structural deficiencies. While individual acts of brutality by certain police personnel cannot be denied, the problem is essentially systemic, a result of weak oversight, inadequate training, and a policing culture still influenced by colonial methods of coercive interrogation. When detainees die or suffer injuries in custody, it signifies the breakdown of command responsibility, the absence of technological safeguards, and failure of leadership at multiple levels.”
“The Supreme Court’s observation that ‘the issue is of oversight’ accurately captures this reality. The existence of CCTVs is of little value if there is no automated mechanism to detect their non-functioning or tampering. Hence, the Court’s suggestion of establishing fully automated control rooms at the state and national levels is both necessary and pragmatic. Real-time technological monitoring can ensure that any failure or interruption in CCTV operation is immediately flagged for corrective action, thereby restoring the intended transparency.”
“Custodial deaths expose a dual failure i.e. individual and systemic, while the immediate perpetrators of custodial violence must face criminal prosecution under Section 302 IPC 103(1) BNS when evidence establishes intentional brutality, the deeper cause lies in weak supervision, lack of accountability, and outdated policing culture. The mindset that coercion is an acceptable tool of interrogation persists because institutional checks remain ineffective.”
“Equally concerning is the institutional failure of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions. Empowered under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, to prevent and investigate custodial abuse, these bodies have largely become reactive and procedural. Their reliance on police reports, limited field verification, and non-binding recommendations has diluted their deterrent effect. The Court’s intervention thus fills an institutional vacuum, performing the role the NHRC should have played as the primary national watchdog.”
“Accountability Beyond the Individual to prevent recurrence, institutional accountability is equally critical. Station House Officers (SHOs) must be held responsible for the safety of every detainee. District Superintendents / DCPs should be answerable for supervision lapses. Medical officers who fail to report injuries must face disciplinary and criminal action. State Governments should also face judicial scrutiny for failure to implement Supreme Court directives (CCTV, legal aid access, etc.).”
“There should be a Reform-Oriented Approach, while punishment is essential for deterrence, a reformative approach is equally necessary. Police forces need Human rights and custodial management training as part of basic and in-service courses, psychological screening of personnel handling interrogations, emphasis on Scientific tools and forensic methods to replace coercive tactics and Visible supervision by senior officers, especially in sensitive cases.”
Noted Advocate Amarjit Singh Chandhiok said, “Installation of CCTV cameras by direction of the Supreme Court will not help stop abuse of human rights in police stations or in any other such agencies of the State. It can always be turned off or covered. Many excuses will be invented to cover up the lapse. Whether it (the physical torture) is because of the sadistic or brutal mentality of the police personnel or not, the police in charge is responsible for every custodial death, for which they should be prosecuted.
Chandhiok further said, ” The National Human Rights Commission (BHRC), has failed many times in protecting human rights. Even if it passes an order, where is the full implementation of it? Is there any satisfactory follow-up? Many custodial deaths go unnoticed of ordinary people for whom there is none to voice an inquiry or object.
