JUSTICE UNDER SIEGE: HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE SHADOW OF POLICE TORTURE IN INDIA BY - DIVYA.M

JUSTICE UNDER SIEGE: HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE SHADOW OF POLICE TORTURE IN INDIA
 
AUTHORED BY - DIVYA.M,
LLM, Ist year,
Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University
 
 
“…Torture is banned, absolutely and unconditionally, without exception...”
– United Nations Convention Against Torture
 
ABSTRACT
The delicate interplay between safeguarding individual liberties and ensuring state security forms the bedrock of justice systems worldwide. The Latin principles, Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex and Salus Republicae Est Suprema Lex, underscore that community welfare often takes precedence over individual rights. However, state actions must inherently embody fairness and justice. Torture, by its nature, undermines these values, directly assaulting the core of human rights and human dignity. Such acts signify a societal regression, tarnishing the moral fabric and representing a profound failure of humanity.
 
Among the most critical human rights violations, torture has been a focal point of global condemnation, addressed extensively in international conventions and declarations. Despite these initiatives, its persistent occurrence calls for a strengthened and comprehensive response. This study advocates for robust legal frameworks, heightened judicial accountability, and reinforced protections to eradicate torture and preserve human dignity.
 
Keywords: Torture, Human Rights, State Security, Judicial Accountability, Human Dignity.
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
"The modern history of 'torture' is not only a record of the progressive prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading practices. It is also part of a more complex story of the modern secular concept of what it means to be truly human." – Talal Asad[1]. Torture, in all its forms, is one of the gravest violations of human rights. Despite its condemnation in international law, it continues to be used by states, often under the pretext of ensuring national security or maintaining law and order. The lack of a precise, universally accepted definition of torture creates significant legal loopholes, enabling states to escape accountability for its practice[2].
 
In India, torture is addressed under Sections 330 and 331 of the Indian Penal Code, but the absence of a universally recognized legal definition leaves space for the continued abuse of power[3]. International human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) have defined it in broad terms, but these definitions are often generalized and do not specifically outline what constitutes torture in all cases.
 
For instance, the UDHR Article 5 and the Constitution of India prohibit torture, stating that no one shall be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Yet, these instruments fail to offer a detailed definition of "torture," leaving it open to interpretation[4]. This lack of specificity allows for various practices, such as physical and psychological abuse, to be categorized as torture in some jurisdictions and not in others. According to the Convention Against Torture (1984), torture is specifically defined 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”[5].
While this definition provides some clarity, the application of the term "severe pain or suffering" and the requirement that the act be "intentionally inflicted" leaves room for legal and practical ambiguity, especially in cases of psychological or indirect torture. The forms of torture are varied—physical torture includes beatings, suffocation, and electric shocks, while psychological torture may involve threats, isolation, or verbal abuse. These methods not only aim to extract confessions but also aim to dehumanize the individual, thus violating Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty[6].
 
Torture violates the very essence of human dignity and is inherently incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 5 of the UDHR explicitly states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"[7]. Yet, despite these protections, torture persists globally, undermining the universality of human rights. One of the fundamental questions that arises is whether human rights can be suspended for the sake of state protection. While states may argue that such measures are necessary to combat terrorism or organized crime, international law firmly rejects the idea that human rights can be violated in the name of national security. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) makes it clear that no circumstances—be it war, public emergency, or national security threats—can justify torture[8]. 
 
The defence often put forward by states in cases of torture is that it is necessary for the protection of society. The legal principle salus populi est suprema lex is invoked to justify actions that would otherwise be deemed unlawful[9]. However, even under the guise of state protection, torture is an illegal and immoral practice. The Indian Supreme Court, in cases like D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, has made it clear that no state action, including the protection of national security, can justify torture[10][11]. Torture, whether conducted by police, military, or other state agencies, is a direct assault on human dignity. It is not merely a physical violation but a profound psychological trauma that affects the individual’s mental health, perpetuating a cycle of fear, despair, and helplessness that can last long after the act itself ends[12]
CHAPTER 2
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF TORTURE
The practice of torture has a long and complex history, reflecting humanity's struggles with power, control, and justice. From ancient civilizations to modern states, torture has been used as a tool to extract confessions, punish dissent, or maintain social order.
 
Torture in Ancient Times
The Code of Hammurabi (circa 1754 BCE) illustrates one of the earliest known legal systems, where harsh physical penalties were prescribed for offenders, though these were more punitive than interrogative in nature[13]. In ancient Rome, torture was institutionalized as a means of obtaining testimony, especially from slaves, under the assumption that pain would reveal the truth[14].
 
Torture in the Middle Ages
During the medieval period, torture became widespread, particularly under the Inquisition. Methods like the rack, thumb screws, and iron maidens were used to extract confessions or punish heretics[15]. The Inquisition marked the intersection of religion and power, where state mechanisms justified inhumane practices under the guise of divine authority.
 
The Enlightenment and Decline of Torture
The Enlightenment of the 18th century brought a shift in attitudes toward human rights. Thinkers like Cesare Beccaria condemned torture as ineffective and barbaric in On Crimes and Punishments (1764), arguing that it often led to false confessions[16]. This era also saw democratic ideals advocating for the dignity and rights of individuals, culminating in milestones like the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1791), which prohibited cruel and unusual punishments[17].
 
Modern International Prohibitions
The 20th century saw significant developments in the global condemnation of torture. Instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) unequivocally banned torture[18][19]. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) offered a comprehensive definition of torture and required states to take active measures to prevent it[20].
 
Despite these international efforts, torture persisted in various forms, often justified under the pretext of national security, especially during the "War on Terror" after 2001[21]. The legal principle articulated in Article 2(2) of the Convention Against Torture affirms that no exceptional circumstances—whether war, internal instability, or national emergencies—can justify the use of torture[22].
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 3:
CIRCUMSTANCES AND FORMS OF TORTURE
Torture is a blatant violation of human rights and dignity, occurring in various contexts where power is unchecked. This chapter explores the circumstances that enable torture, the forms it takes, and its profound impact on individuals, families, and society. Circumstances of Human Rights Violations
 
Torture occurs under numerous conditions, including:
  1. Custodial Detentions:
Torture is often inflicted on individuals in police lockups and prisons during interrogation, resulting in physical and psychological harm[23].
  1. Illegal Handcuffing and Use of Force:
Practices such as shackling detainees unnecessarily or deploying excessive force during arrests violate the principles of human dignity[24].
  1. Extrajudicial Actions:
State agencies frequently resort to torture during counter-terrorism operations or in situations where the intent is to suppress dissent under the guise of maintaining law and order[25].
  1. Vulnerable Victims:
Marginalized groups such as women, minors, and socio-economically disadvantaged individuals are disproportionately targeted[26].
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, while aimed at reforming criminal law, still lacks adequate safeguards to curb custodial violence[27].
 
Forms of Torture
Torture manifests in the following ways:
  1. Physical Torture:
    • Includes methods such as beating, suffocation, electric shocks, and waterboarding.
    • For instance, in Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana, the victim was subjected to brutal physical assault, resulting in death[28].
  2. Psychological Torture:
    • Involves threats, isolation, sleep deprivation, and coercive methods. Victims often suffer lasting mental health issues, including PTSD and depression[29].
  3. Sexual Violence:
    • Custodial rape and other forms of sexual abuse occur frequently and disproportionately affect women and children. The Supreme Court in Smt. Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble highlighted the need for stricter accountability in such cases[30].
  4. Verbal and Emotional Abuse:
    • Insults, humiliation, and racial or communal slurs are employed to demean detainees, stripping them of their dignity and self-worth[31].
  5. Economic Exploitation:
    • In some cases, detainees are coerced into paying bribes to avoid harsher treatment or false charges[32].
 
Impacts of Torture
The consequences of torture ripple through every aspect of life, affecting individuals, families, and society:
  1. On Individuals:
    • Physical injuries often result in permanent disabilities or chronic pain.
    • Mental health deteriorates due to trauma, with victims experiencing nightmares, depression, and suicidal tendencies[33].
  2. On Families:
    • Families of victims face emotional anguish, economic strain, and social stigma. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the victim’s mother had to seek legal intervention to secure justice for her son’s custodial death[34].
 
  1. On Society:
    • Torture undermines public trust in law enforcement, perpetuates a culture of fear, and erodes the legitimacy of the state.
    • Reports from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reveal rising instances of custodial deaths, reflecting systemic failures[35].
Torture not only destroys the lives of victims but also disrupts the social fabric by fostering resentment and perpetuating cycles of violence and mistrust.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 4
 LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL PROVISIONS
Legislative Provisions:
In India, torture is addressed through several legislative provisions, primarily within the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 and the Indian Constitution. These laws aim to provide safeguards against torture, though gaps in implementation still allow for the persistence of custodial violence and abuse.
 
  1. Indian Penal Code (IPC):
    • Section 330 of the IPC criminalizes the voluntary causing of hurt to extort a confession or to compel a person to restore stolen property. It specifically prohibits the use of torture for extracting confessions.
    • Section 331 similarly addresses causing hurt to extract a confession or compel an accused person to provide information for the purposes of investigation.
    • While these provisions criminalize torture, they focus primarily on the physical aspects of abuse and do not comprehensively address psychological torture or other less direct forms of violence. Furthermore, the standards for proving the crime remain high, making it difficult to prosecute offenders effectively[36].
 
  1. Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):
The CrPC contains several provisions that are aimed at preventing torture and ensuring that arrested individuals are treated fairly.
    • Section 46 regulates the arrest of individuals, ensuring that it is carried out without unnecessary force or harm.
    • Section 50 mandates that an arrested person must be informed of the reasons for their arrest and be given the right to bail if the offense is bailable. The right to consult a legal practitioner and the right to be presented before a magistrate within 24 hours (under Section 57) are also constitutional safeguards designed to prevent torture[37].
 
 
3.      Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023:
    • The BNSS, 2023 introduces critical reforms aimed at protecting the fundamental rights of citizens and preventing torture. This law strengthens accountability for law enforcement agencies, making them liable for acts of custodial torture. It mandates that custodial deaths be investigated thoroughly, and if found guilty, the police personnel involved face legal action. The law also stresses the importance of medical examinations and mandates that individuals in custody receive regular health checks to prevent abuse[38].
    • Section 88 of the BNSS, 2023 holds that any torture or mistreatment of detainees is a punishable offense. It further emphasizes the right to fair treatment in police custody, which aligns with international human rights standards[39].
 
  1. Indian Constitution:
    • Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is the cornerstone of legal protections against torture, stating that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. This Article has been interpreted to extend to safeguarding individuals against torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment[40].
    • Article 22 provides further protections for individuals against arbitrary arrest and detention. It mandates that detained individuals must be informed of the reasons for their detention and be allowed to consult a legal practitioner. This serves as an additional safeguard against custodial abuse[41].
 
International Conventions:
India, as a signatory to various international human rights instruments, is bound by several conventions aimed at preventing torture and ensuring the protection of fundamental rights.
  1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948:
    • Article 5 of the UDHR explicitly prohibits torture, stating that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. While the UDHR is not legally binding, it has been widely recognized as setting international human rights standards[42].
  2. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), 1984:
    • India ratified the CAT in 1997, which provides a more detailed definition of torture and places clear obligations on states to prevent its occurrence.
    • Article 1 of the CAT defines torture as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted for purposes such as obtaining a confession, punishment, or coercion. The CAT also mandates that no exceptional circumstances, including war or national security concerns, may justify torture[43].
    • Article 2(2) of the CAT emphasizes that no circumstances justify torture, further cementing the legal framework against the practice.
  3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966:
    • Article 7 of the ICCPR reiterates the prohibition of torture, stating that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. India is a signatory to the ICCPR, and it serves as an international legal framework for promoting human rights, including protection from torture[44].
 
Judicial Provisions and Activism:
The Indian judiciary has played an essential role in upholding constitutional protections against torture, particularly in cases of custodial violence. Various landmark rulings have significantly advanced the legal framework surrounding torture and its prevention.
  1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997):
    • In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court took a proactive stance in protecting individuals' rights during arrest and detention. The Court issued guidelines aimed at preventing custodial violence, including ensuring that detainees are informed of their rights, that arrests are recorded, and that medical examination is carried out on individuals in custody[45].
    • This case marked a significant step in the judicial oversight of police conduct, leading to the establishment of mandatory procedures to protect detainees from torture and abuse.
  2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993):
    • In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the Supreme Court highlighted the right to compensation for victims of custodial death and abuse. The Court emphasized that when a person's fundamental rights are violated by state action, compensation should be provided as a form of redress[46]. This case set a precedent for holding the state accountable for human rights violations committed by its agencies.
  3. People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997):
    • In PUCL v. Union of India, the Supreme Court reinforced the importance of safeguarding human dignity by declaring that no circumstances, including national security, could justify the use of torture. This case extended the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution to cases involving state-sponsored torture[47].
  4. Judicial Activism and the Right to Life:
    • The role of the judiciary in India has been characterized by judicial activism in human rights cases. The judiciary has often taken an expansive view of Article 21 to protect individuals from torture, reinforcing the idea that life and personal liberty cannot be violated under any circumstances. The Court's proactive stance has been instrumental in expanding the scope of constitutional protections against torture[48].
 
National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB) Data:
Despite the legislative safeguards and judicial activism, torture and custodial violence persist as significant issues in India. According to data from the National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB), there have been numerous instances of custodial deaths and allegations of torture by police. The NCRB's annual reports highlight the ongoing problem of police brutality and lack of accountability, with many cases going unpunished, reflecting systemic issues in the law enforcement agencies[49].
 
India's legal framework against torture is extensive, but there remains a significant gap between law and practice. Legislative provisions under the IPC, CrPC, and the Constitution provide a foundation for protecting individuals from torture, but issues of implementation, lack of accountability, and systemic abuse persist. The judicial provisions, especially the Supreme Court's rulings, have made important strides in curbing torture, but challenges remain in holding perpetrators accountable.
 
International conventions such as the CAT and ICCPR further strengthen India's obligations to prevent torture, but their application in domestic law remains inconsistent. It is essential that India continues to strengthen legal mechanisms, improve police accountability, and ensure that judicial activism leads to more robust protection for individuals against torture and custodial violence.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 5
REASONS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF TORTURE AND CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE
The prevalence of torture and custodial violence in India is influenced by a complex set of factors, including structural issues within law enforcement, political motivations, and societal attitudes toward justice and human rights. While India has a robust legal framework in place to protect against such practices, torture continues to persist in various forms due to systemic weaknesses.
 
Factors Contributing to Torture and Custodial Violence:
  1. Inefficiencies in Law Enforcement:
According to the National Crimes Records Bureau (NCRB), a substantial number of custodial deaths are reported annually, despite the presence of legal safeguards[50]. The failure to properly investigate and prosecute police officers involved in such abuses creates a culture of impunity. Many law enforcement agencies still operate with inadequate training in human rights, and brutality is often seen as an acceptable method of extraction of confessions or investigation.
  1. Judicial Delays and Lack of Accountability:
The delay in trials and investigations into custodial violence exacerbates the problem. Judicial delays, as reported by the National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog), often lead to a lack of accountability for police actions[51]. Undertrial prisoners who remain in detention for long periods, coupled with the absence of effective oversight, further contribute to the abuse of power by law enforcement.
  1. Political Pressure:
In some cases, law enforcement agencies are directed or pressured by political leaders to suppress dissent or extract information from certain individuals, leading to torture. For instance, terrorism-related cases or criminal investigations often see an uptick in allegations of custodial violence, as authorities feel justified in employing coercive methods to extract information under the guise of national security[52].
  1. Weak Institutional Safeguards:
Despite provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to prevent torture, these laws are frequently violated due to weak implementation. Internal reviews and supervisory mechanisms within police forces are often insufficient, and cases of custodial abuse remain largely unpunished[53].
 
Government Data on Custodial Violence:
According to the NCRB reports, custodial deaths and allegations of torture continue to be a persistent issue in Indian jails and police stations. The 2019 NCRB report highlighted that 1,674 deaths occurred in judicial custody, with a notable percentage of them being attributed to police brutality. Additionally, the NITI Aayog's 2020 report noted that access to justice remains a significant problem for victims of custodial violence, as many victims do not have the means to pursue legal remedies[54][55].
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 6
LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES
While India continues to grapple with issues of custodial violence and torture, lessons can be drawn from international practices, particularly from countries like the United Kingdom, United States, and Germany, which have made strides in addressing such abuses.
 
1. United Kingdom (UK)
The UK has made substantial progress in curbing police brutality and ensuring accountability for custodial violence through measures such as:
  • Independent Oversight:
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) ensures that complaints against police officers are thoroughly investigated, fostering greater accountability within law enforcement agencies[56].
  • Clear Guidelines on Detention and Interrogation: The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984
outlines strict rules for detention, interrogation, and the treatment of detainees. It mandates the presence of legal representation during police questioning, providing a safeguard against coercive interrogation practices[57].
 
2. United States (US)
The US has implemented several measures to combat police violence and ensure that torture is not used in the name of law enforcement:
  • Miranda Rights:
The Miranda v. Arizona (1966) decision established that suspects must be informed of their rights before being interrogated, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, to avoid forced confessions[58].
  • The Torture Victim Protection Act (1991):
This act holds individuals, including government officials, liable for acts of torture and extrajudicial killings committed under colour of law. It provides a legal avenue for victims of state-sponsored violence to seek justice[59].
3. Germany
Germany has been successful in minimizing instances of police brutality through a series of reforms:
  • Comprehensive Training:
German police officers undergo extensive training in human rights, and they are regularly updated on the legal limitations of their power to arrest and detain individuals[60].
  • Independent Police Complaints Commission:
An independent body in Germany allows citizens to report abuse without fear of retaliation, ensuring a transparent investigation into complaints of custodial violence[61].
 
Lessons for India:
India can benefit from implementing similar practices, including:
  • Establishing independent oversight bodies like the IOPC to investigate complaints of custodial violence.
  • Strengthening the training of law enforcement officers to respect human rights during interrogations and detentions.
  • Ensuring that legal representation is available at all stages of custodial processes, as is mandated in the UK and US.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 7
FINDINGS AND SOLUTIONS
Based on the examination of Indian laws, international practices, and the current state of custodial violence in India, the following findings and solutions can be drawn:
 
Findings:
  1. Despite the existence of robust constitutional safeguards and statutory provisions, there are implementation gaps that allow custodial violence to persist.
  2. There is often insufficient oversight of law enforcement agencies, and internal mechanisms for accountability are weak.
  3. Political pressures sometimes lead to the justification of torture under the guise of national security or the fight against terrorism.
  4. Police training is insufficient when it comes to human rights and custodial safeguards, leading to violations during interrogations and detentions.
 
Solutions:
  1. Create independent oversight bodies to monitor police actions, ensuring transparency and accountability in cases of custodial violence.
  2. Implement international standards, such as those outlined in the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and ensure they are followed by law enforcement agencies.
  3. Provide regular human rights training for police officers, including instruction on legal safeguards and ethical interrogation methods.
  4. Raise awareness about citizens' rights in custody and provide legal aid to victims of torture to ensure access to justice.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION
Torture and custodial violence continue to be significant issues in India despite strong legal protections. Judicial activism has played a crucial role in addressing these violations, but there remains a pressing need for more effective implementation of laws. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, along with lessons from international practices, provides a pathway for India to ensure that torture becomes a thing of the past. Through stronger accountability, training, and oversight, India can align itself with global standards and uphold the fundamental human rights of all its citizens.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 9:
REFERENCES
1.      Krishnamurti.k, “Police Diaries, Statements, Reports, Investigations, Prosecutions, Arrests, Etc.”, The Law Book Company(P) Ltd, Allahabad, Sixth Edition, 1998.
2.      Jagadish Swarup, “Constitution of India”, Modern Law Publications, Second Edition, Volume-1.
3.      Ashutosh, “Rights of Accused”, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2009 Edition, ISBN : 978-81-7534-738-0.
4.      Nitya Ramakrishnan, “In Custody Law, Impunity and Prisoner Abuse in South Asia”, Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, 2013, ISBN : 978-81-321-0946-4(HB)
5.      David Weissbrodt & Cheryl Heilman, “Defining Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment,” 29 Law & Inequality: J. Theory & Practice 343 (2011).
6.       A.S. Anand, “Judicial Activism and Human Rights Jurisprudence in India”, Supreme Court Cases (Journal), Vol. 7, 1999, pp. 9–15.
7.       Yogesh K. Tyagi, “The Indian Police and Human Rights: A Synoptic View”, Indian Institute of Public Administration Journal, April 1992, pp. 45–60.
8.      Dr. P.J. Alexander, “Some Recommendations from the Law Commission of India on Arrest and Detention”, Article 2 Journal (Human Rights Issues), Vol. 1, Issue 2, 2001.

[1] Talal Asad, The Anthropology of the Body and the Medical Anthropology of 'Torture' (New York: Random House, 1987), 323.
[2] Indian Penal Code, Sections 330 and 331.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 5.
[5] Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 1 (1984).
[6] Article 21, Indian Constitution – Right to life and personal liberty.
[7] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 5.
[8] Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 1 (1984).
[9] Salus populi est suprema lex – The welfare of the people is the supreme law.
[10] D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610.
[11] Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960.
[12] Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 1087
[13] Code of Hammurabi, circa 1754 BCE, Article 8.
[14] Roman Legal Procedures, Torture as a means of obtaining testimony.
[15] The Inquisition, methods of torture used during the medieval period.
[16] Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments, 1764.
[17] Eighth Amendment, United States Constitution, 1791.
 
[18] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 5, 1948.
[19] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966.
[20] Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), Article 1, 1984.
[21] War on Terror, resurgence of state-sponsored torture after 2001.
[22] CAT, Article 2(2).
[23] D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610.
[24] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
[25] Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), Article 2(2).
[26] Amnesty International, "Torture in India," 2022.
[27] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Chapter 12.
[28] Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 1087.
[29] Human Rights Watch, Broken System: Torture in Custody, 2021.
[30] Smt. Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble, AIR 2003 SC 4567.
[31] A.S. Anand, VIIIth International Symposium on Torture, (1999), SCC (Journal) p. 11.
[32] Transparency International, "Corruption and Custodial Practices in India," 2020.
[33] People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568
[34] AIR 1993 SC 1960.
[35] National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Crime in India Report, 2022
[36] Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 330 and 331
[37] Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 46, 50, 57.
[38] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, Section 88.
[39] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, Section 88.
[40] Article 21, Indian Constitution – Right to life and personal liberty.
[41] Article 22, Indian Constitution – Protection against arrest and detention.
[42] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5, 1948.                                                                       
[43] Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 1 (1984).
[44] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 7 (1966).
[45] AIR 1997 SC 610.
[46] AIR 1993 SC 1960
[47] AIR 1997 SC 568
[48] J.S. Verma, "Judicial Activism and its Impact on Criminal Justice System," Speech delivered on 26th April, 1997 at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy, Hyderabad, in New Dimensions of Justice, p. 85-86 (2000 Edn., Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi).
[49] National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB) Annual Report, 2018.
 
[50] National Crimes Records Bureau (NCRB), Annual Report 2019
[51] NITI Aayog, India's Criminal Justice System Report, 2020
[52] Indian Penal Code, Sections 330, 331.
[53] Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 46, 50, 57.
[54] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
[55] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 5.
[56] Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 1 (1984).
[57] Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), 1984, United Kingdom.
[58] 384 U.S. 436 (1966), United States.
[59] The Torture Victim Protection Act, 1991, United States.
[60] German Federal Police Act, 2008.
[61] Independent Police Complaints Commission, Germany.