India's Position in the Global Torture Index: An Assessment of Custodial Torture, Legal Framework, and Human Rights Challenges

 

India's Position in the Global Torture Index: An Assessment of Custodial Torture, Legal Framework, and Human Rights Challenges

SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

        

Introduction

Torture is universally recognized as one of the gravest violations of human rights. It strikes at the core of human dignity, undermines the rule of law, and weakens public confidence in institutions entrusted with protecting citizens. Following the horrors of the Second World War, the international community developed a robust legal framework prohibiting torture under all circumstances. Instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) establish the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

India, as the world's largest democracy and a constitutional republic committed to protecting fundamental rights, has consistently affirmed its commitment to human rights. Nevertheless, allegations of custodial torture, police brutality, deaths in custody, and impunity continue to attract national and international concern. These concerns are reflected in the Global Torture Index (GTI), launched in 2025 by the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), which classifies India as a High Risk country for torture and ill-treatment.

The Global Torture Index does not merely count incidents of torture; rather, it evaluates the structural conditions that enable or prevent torture. India's classification highlights significant deficiencies in legal safeguards, institutional accountability, and implementation of constitutional protections.

The Global Torture Index

The Global Torture Index is an international assessment tool designed to measure the risk of torture across countries. Developed by the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), it evaluates legal frameworks, institutional safeguards, accountability mechanisms, victims' rights, prison conditions, police practices, and government commitment to preventing torture.

Unlike rankings based solely on reported incidents, the GTI examines whether a country's legal and institutional architecture effectively prevents torture and provides remedies when violations occur.

The Index assesses countries under seven major pillars: Political commitment to eradicate torture; Prevention of police brutality; Protection of persons deprived of liberty; Rights of torture victims; Accountability and ending impunity; Safeguards against torture; Transparency and public oversight.

Based on these indicators, India is assessed as presenting a High Risk of torture and ill-treatment.

Constitutional Protection Against Torture

The Constitution of India contains several provisions that implicitly prohibit torture.

Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Judicial interpretation has expanded Article 21 to include protection against torture and custodial violence.

Article 20(3) protects individuals against self-incrimination.

Article 22 provides safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention, including the right to legal representation and production before a magistrate within twenty-four hours.

The Supreme Court has strengthened these protections through landmark judgments such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), which laid down detailed guidelines governing arrest and detention, including mandatory arrest memos, medical examinations, and notification of relatives.

Despite these constitutional safeguards, implementation remains inconsistent.

Why India Is Classified as "High Risk"

1. Absence of a Specific Anti-Torture Law

One of the principal reasons for India's classification is the absence of legislation specifically criminalizing torture.

Although acts of assault and grievous hurt are punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (formerly the Indian Penal Code), there is no offence of torture corresponding to international standards under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

Consequently: torture is often prosecuted under ordinary criminal provisions; command responsibility is inadequately addressed; penalties may not reflect the gravity of torture and prosecution of public officials remains difficult.

This legislative gap has been repeatedly highlighted by international human rights bodies.

2. Non-Ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture

India signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture in 1997 but has not ratified it.

Ratification would require India to: criminalize torture; establish independent investigative mechanisms; ensure compensation and rehabilitation for victims; strengthen safeguards against arbitrary detention and cooperate with international monitoring mechanisms.

Similarly, India has not ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT), which establishes independent preventive inspection of detention facilities.

3. Custodial Violence

One of the most persistent concerns is custodial violence.

Reports from courts, human rights organizations, and statutory bodies have documented allegations involving: physical assault during interrogation; torture to extract confessions; sexual violence; psychological abuse; deaths in police custody and violence in judicial custody.

Victims frequently belong to marginalized groups, including Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, religious minorities, migrant workers, and economically disadvantaged communities.

4. Prison Conditions

India's prisons face chronic structural problems.

These include: overcrowding; shortage of prison staff; inadequate medical facilities; poor sanitation; prolonged undertrial detention and limited access to legal aid.

According to the Global Torture Index, prison occupancy exceeds capacity, while undertrial prisoners constitute approximately three-fourths of the prison population.

Overcrowded prisons increase the likelihood of violence, abuse, and inhuman treatment.

5. Police Accountability

The Index also points to weaknesses in accountability mechanisms.

Investigations into allegations of custodial torture often face obstacles, including: reluctance to register First Information Reports against police personnel; dependence on police investigations; delays in prosecution; low conviction rates and requirement of prior governmental sanction in certain cases.

These factors contribute to a perception of institutional impunity.

6. Victims' Rights

Victims of torture frequently encounter significant barriers in obtaining justice.

Challenges include: fear of retaliation; lack of witness protection; financial hardship; inadequate legal representation; delayed judicial proceedings and limited rehabilitation services.

Although constitutional courts have awarded compensation in several cases, comprehensive statutory mechanisms for victim rehabilitation remain inadequate.

Judicial Initiatives

The Indian judiciary has played an important role in combating custodial torture.

Important judicial interventions include:

• D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) establishing arrest guidelines;
• Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) recognizing compensation for custodial deaths;
• Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994) limiting arbitrary arrests;
• repeated directions emphasizing videography of interrogations and installation of CCTV cameras in police stations.

These decisions have strengthened procedural safeguards but cannot substitute for comprehensive legislative reform.

National Human Rights Commission

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) regularly monitors custodial deaths and issues recommendations concerning: independent investigations; compensation; magisterial inquiries; medical examinations and human rights training for police personnel.

However, many observers note that the Commission's recommendations are advisory rather than binding, limiting their effectiveness.

International Criticism

Various international human rights mechanisms have expressed concern regarding: custodial torture; excessive use of force; arbitrary detention; impunity; preventive detention laws and prison conditions.

Repeated recommendations have urged India to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture and enact comprehensive anti-torture legislation.

Government's Position

The Government of India maintains that: constitutional protections are robust; judicial oversight is strong; existing criminal laws punish custodial abuse and human rights institutions provide adequate safeguards.

The government has also highlighted: police modernization; forensic investigation; CCTV installation in police stations; judicial monitoring; digital record-keeping; human rights training and nevertheless, critics argue that implementation remains uneven across states.

Reform Measures

To reduce the risk of torture, several reforms have been proposed:

Enact comprehensive anti-torture legislation; ratify UNCAT and OPCAT; strengthen independent investigation of custodial complaints; improve police training and interrogation methods; ensure mandatory audio-video recording of interrogations; reduce prison overcrowding; expedite criminal trials; strengthen legal aid; improve witness protection and establish effective victim rehabilitation mechanisms.

Conclusion

India's classification as a High Risk country in the Global Torture Index does not imply that torture is officially sanctioned by the State. Rather, it indicates that significant structural weaknesses continue to create conditions in which torture and ill-treatment may occur and accountability remains insufficient. While the Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty, and dignity, and the judiciary has developed important safeguards against custodial abuse, the absence of a dedicated anti-torture law, non-ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, persistent allegations of custodial violence, prison overcrowding, and challenges in ensuring accountability continue to raise serious concerns.

Addressing these issues requires a combination of legislative reform, institutional strengthening, police modernization, independent oversight, and effective implementation of constitutional safeguards. A comprehensive approach that protects both public security and individual rights would reinforce the rule of law and strengthen India's commitment to democratic governance and human dignity. Such reforms would also contribute to improving India's standing in international human rights assessments while enhancing public confidence in the criminal justice system.