The recent death of a father-son duo in Tamil Nadu has sparked anger amongst the people of the country. The country also saw people raising hands to how this set of news being particularly from the Southern part has been neglected without losing even a breath. The legal issue covered in the case is on Custodial Violence. Such a violence is what takes place in the judicial and police custody. It is where a person who is alleged to commit the crime is tortured mentally as well as physically. In certain cases, the torture crosses the limits of rape and death as well.

The father-son case has raised several legal concerns such as the poor regard of fundamental rights as the SC identified in the case of Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka in 1996, as how while upholding fundamental rights of prisoners, the ‘Torture and ill treatment’ in prisons is an area that requires reform. However, no such follow up has been seen. The question on the methods of investigation involving torture are particularly also against the fundamental right to life and dignity as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The case puts lights to how the misuse of power of arrest happens in the country. The 3^rd report of the National Police Commission observed how 60 per cent of all arrests were completely “unnecessary”. Furthermore, how the unnecessary applications under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 orders to get non-bailable remand for the accused and is against Article 19 of the Constitution which enables freedom as a fundamental right under the blanket of some reasonable restrictions.

The arresting involves ignorance of rules and use of torture by Police which mostly happens not in respect to the procedure as laid under the Criminal Procedure Code where the police custody is up to 15 days or judicial custody up to 60-90 days, etc. Such acts fall under extra-legal behaviours.

A major concern lines from this incident. It is how the laws still cannot protect its citizens due to the lack of implementation in the process. But when the laid laws are seen, it also reflects how there is a lack of strong legislation against such tortures in India. It shows how the mere release of draconian rules for non-compliance has turned the sector unprogressively ineffective to be bound by law.

India, despite the variety of laws protecting residents, tourists, animals is still yet to criminalise custodial violence. The country had signed the UN Convention against Torture in 1997 but like the trail, the ratification is still on hold.

The country has seen days after days when the police officials have been criticised for such a behaviour. But one needs to understand that there is lack of independent functioning in the particular sector. The Police Act of 1861 is specifically silent on ‘superintendence’ and ‘general control directions’. Such silence is deceptive as it only enables the executives to reduce the police to mere tools but more often not, they are used fulfil mere political interests.

The same could also been minimised through tightening the officials as right now, there stands no second thought before attaining the position of power. The process will certainly fall under regulations if the law permits common citizens to sue a police officer directly without the approval of the Government.

The law as such as has various loop holes. Including the weak functioning of National Human Rights Commission which righteously empowers to summon any witness, order certain production of evidence and also to recommend that the government which can initiate prosecution of officials. Needless to mention, the implementation loses hands they have mostly been limited. Merely to provide compensations or any other immediate interim relief by calling on the Government.

The way forward, however, looks progressive as India has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Though it has only signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment but positively, both of it prohibits torture.

Along with it, there is a reformation under Section 197 of CrPC as distinct so that there need not be requirement of any government approval before pursuing charges against police where the alleged crime is torture, arbitrary detention and also other criminal acts.

There have also been strict implementations of the DK Basu judgment given in 1997 by the SC. In the case, the apex court had issued 11 directions with the objective to increase the transparency and also to fix responsibility while any police official is making an arrest.

The effective role of magistrate is encouraged throughout the process as they have a duty to prevent the overreaching of police powers and have a right to ensure the wellbeing of suspects in custody by directly questioning them. They also have to ensure that the right to counsel is available to suspects so that Article 22 of the Constitution is not violated at any stage.

Various other steps as such as to ensure the police accountability, getting technically uplifted by providing training in scientific methods of investigation, introducing different gadgets to help the process as Body cameras used in the U.S. and the U.K and importantly, CCTV cameras inside the police stations.

Death due to torture is purely a criminal act and no authority should have power positioned to do it. The steps have certainly been put but it all that matters is that the entire way forward is duly maintained.