The power to arrest is among the state’s most far-reaching powers and the moment a citizen is taken into custody, the balance shifts entirely in favour of the state. That imbalance is why the Constitution places limits on detention, mandates judicial oversight and guarantees legal protections. When those safeguards fail, custody ceases to be an instrument of law and becomes a space where rights can disappear from public view.
Supreme Court’s recent observations on custodial violence and unlawful detention serve as a reminder that constitutional rights do not begin at the courtroom door. They apply from the very moment an individual’s liberty is restricted. By ruling that the 24-hour limit for producing a detainee before a magistrate starts from the time of detention rather than formal arrest, the court has addressed a gap that has long enabled abuse and weakened accountability.
Custodial violence remains one of the most troubling contradictions within India’s criminal justice system. The law grants the state authority to investigate crime and maintain order, but that authority is bound by constitutional limits. Detention is legally permissible; violence is not.
Every allegation of custodial abuse raises questions about the institutions entrusted with enforcing the law. The state’s legitimacy rests not only on its ability to maintain order but also on its willingness to subject itself to the same legal standards it imposes on citizens. When those standards are violated behind closed doors, public faith in the justice system suffers.
Safeguards governing arrest and detention were created to ensure that police powers are exercised within constitutional boundaries. Requirements such as prompt production before a magistrate, documentation of arrests, medical examinations and access to legal representation were designed to prevent arbitrary detention and abuse. Yet recurring complaints indicate that compliance is often inconsistent and oversight remains inadequate.
The government must treat custodial violence not as a matter of image management but as a governance issue. First, all police stations, lock-ups and interrogation rooms should have fully functional CCTV systems with uninterrupted recording and secure storage. Independent monitoring mechanisms must ensure that footage is preserved and made available whenever allegations arise.
Second, detention records should be digitised and time-stamped from the moment a person’s movement is restricted. Such a system would reduce ambiguity, strengthen accountability and ensure adherence to constitutional timelines. Technology cannot eliminate abuse, but it can make concealment more difficult.
Dependence on confessions and coercive interrogation often reflects weaknesses in investigative capacity. Modern forensic support, advanced training and evidence-based policing can improve investigations while reducing the risk of abuse.
Fourth, allegations of custodial violence must be investigated through independent and time-bound mechanisms. Accountability loses meaning when inquiries are delayed for years or when officers accused of misconduct continue to function without scrutiny. Visible consequences for violations are critical to deterrence.
Fifth, access to legal aid should be guaranteed from the earliest stage of detention. Families must be informed without delay, and detainees should have meaningful access to legal counsel. Transparency is often the strongest protection against abuse.
Finally, governments should publish periodic data on arrests, custodial complaints, investigations and convictions linked to custodial abuse. Public accountability requires public information. Without reliable data, reform efforts risk becoming symbolic rather than substantive.
A democracy is tested not when it exercises power but when it restrains it. Constitution did not create safeguards for ordinary times alone; it created them precisely for moments when the state possesses overwhelming authority over an individual. Custodial violence represents a failure of that constitutional promise. Eliminating it requires more than court judgments. It demands administrative will, institutional reform and a commitment to ensuring that the rule of law does not end when custody begins.