The Supreme Court of India has recently expressed strong concern over the government’s inaction on custodial torture, a persistent issue affecting human rights, police reforms, and criminal justice administration in India. This case has major implications for UPSC GS-II (Governance, Polity, Judiciary) and GS-III (Internal Security).

📌 What Triggered the Supreme Court’s Concern?

The Supreme Court was responding to petitions highlighting:

• Increasing cases of custodial deaths, police brutality, and torture

• Government’s lack of progress on implementing reforms

• India’s pending commitment to international conventions such as the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT)

The Court questioned why the government had not enacted a standalone anti-torture legislation, despite repeated recommendations.

📍 Key Issues Highlighted by the Supreme Court

1️⃣ Rising Custodial Torture & Deaths

• Custodial torture continues to be reported across states.

• NHRC and NCRB data frequently underline a pattern of systemic abuse.

2️⃣ No National Anti-Torture Law

• India has not implemented an exclusive anti-torture law.

• The 2010 Prevention of Torture Bill lapsed without being passed.

3️⃣ Delayed Police Reforms

The Court questioned:

• Why recommendations of the Prakash Singh vs Union of India (2006) judgment haven’t been fully implemented

• Why political interference and lack of police accountability continue

4️⃣ Inadequate Mechanisms for Accountability

• Lack of independent complaints authority

• Weak implementation of Section 176(1A) CrPC (mandatory judicial inquiry in custodial deaths)

🔍 Constitutional & Legal Significance

✔ Article 21: Right to Life

Custodial torture violates Article 21, a fundamental right guaranteeing dignity and life.

✔ Supreme Court’s Role

The Court cited previous landmark cases:

• D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal (1997) – Guidelines on arrest & detention

• Prakash Singh Case (2006) – Framework for police reforms

• Nilabati Behera Case (1993) – Compensation for custodial death

The recent intervention reinforces the Court’s role as the protector of fundamental rights.

🧭 What the Supreme Court Asked the Government

The Court has asked the government to respond on:

• Why India has not enacted a comprehensive anti-torture law

• Steps taken to reduce custodial torture in police stations

• Implementation status of police reforms mandated in 2006

• Measures to ensure transparency in arrests, interrogations, and investigations

📈 Why Is This Important for UPSC?

For Prelims

• Supreme Court cases: D.K Basu, Prakash Singh

• NHRC role & jurisdiction

• NCRB data relevance

• Constitutional rights (Article 21, 22)

For Mains (GS-II & GS-III)

• Custodial violence as a governance failure

• Need for criminal justice reforms

• Police modernization & accountability

• Human rights obligations and UN treaties

📝 Exam-Ready Summary

• Supreme Court has questioned the government over inaction on custodial torture.

• Highlights the absence of anti-torture law, pending UNCAT ratification, and poor police reforms implementation.

• SC cites the violation of Article 21 and reminds government of D.K. Basu and Prakash Singh guidelines.

• Topic is crucial for UPSC GS-II (Judiciary + Governance) and GS-III (Internal Security + Human Rights).