Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court of India (SCI) has sought to penetrate the closed custodial spaces to restrain coercive police power and secure the procedural fairness for accused persons. The constitutional struggle against the custodial torture reflects a long judicial effort starting from D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1996) where the SCI acknowledged that such abuse of power by the public officials is a deliberate assault on the human dignity and formulated eleven binding procedural safeguards [para 35]. Despite these efforts, the incidents of custodial deaths were recurring. This prompted the judiciary, in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018), to compel the adoption of videography and CCTV monitoring as an evidentiary safeguard to enhance the accountability in the custodial environment [paras 1-18 & 31].

Finally, doctrinal developments culminated in the judgment of Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020) where the SCI has established the comprehensive framework for surveillance-based oversight of police stations [paras 8-22]. The scope of the framework was deliberately expansive, which mandates the installation of the CCTV cameras on the entry and exit spaces including the spaces where the detainees might be present. The court had also prescribed the strict specifications that cameras must possess the ability to record audio and video (with night-vision capabilities) and supported with an uninterrupted power supply and stable internet. The major component of the directive was to preserve the recorded footage for at least one year and preferably for eighteen months [para 17].

It has been almost four years since the Saini judgment yet the direction of the court compliance remained sporadic. The empirical reality reflects a structural deficit in compliance with judicial safeguards to just nominal protection rather an operational constrains. As per the data from the National Campaign Against Torture, 60% of custodial death victims are from the marginalised groups, including Dalits, Adivasis and Minorities.

To curb the crisis of this custodial violence, rigorous judicial oversight has been adopted by the courts. The High Court of Allahabad directed the Chief Judicial Magistrates (CJMs) across the state to conduct surprise inspections at random of the police stations to check the functionality of their CCTV systems. The SCI in case of Re Lack of Functional CCTVs in Police Stations v. SMW (2026) took a suo moto case (case on its own initiative) based on a newspaper report highlighting the death of eleven people in police custody across just seven-eight months. The SCI has questioned the lack of functional CCTVs in the police stations while directing the authorities that mere installation of cameras is not sufficient; they must be in proper working condition.

The statical figures shows a persistent surge in custodial death cases: 2023 had reported 2,400 cases increasing to 2,739 cases in 2024. As per the latest report by National Human Right Commission of India, 2,338 cases of custodial deaths were reported in 2025 out of which 165 accused persons lost their life in police custody. The democratic governance in India has faced significant implications due to the down-grading of  the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) to ‘B’ status by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions.

Since 1997, India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) but has not yet ratified the same. Articles 2 and 4 of UNCAT set the strict global standards for absolute prohibition and mandatory criminalisation of torture respectively. Considering the above, India must ratify the UNCAT urgently and formulate effective legislation considering the Saini judgment’sguidelines on surveillance of custodial spaces to secure the rights of the accused and make rule of law in India a lived reality.  

Kinetic Impact Projectiles

One of the earliest uses of rubber bullets took place in 1972 in Northern Ireland and wounded a child, permanently blinding him. This 10-year-old boy from Derry was hit by a kinetic impact projectile (KIP), which was debuted by the British Army during the Troubles. KIPs became prominent during protests against the Vietnam War in the United States and have expanded across the globe. Although their use is widespread, KIPs are an inappropriate tool for crowd-management.

Covered with a thin layer of rubber, these bullets can cause life-altering injuries, disability, and in some cases, death. Ocular trauma, or damage of the eye, has become a prevalent wound for protestors. Images of the bleeding eyes of protestors have reinvigorated conversation about the dangerous use of KIPs, leading to more concerted action to outlaw them.

Violating the Right to Peaceful Assembly: A Worldwide Phenomenon

Despite the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by all 193 member states of the United Nations, consistent violations of its contents have occurred since its drafting. Though peaceful assembly is protected by article 20 of the UDHR, nonviolent protestors are regularly met with excessive force from law enforcement. Further, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes the right to peaceful assembly in Article 21. This is a legally binding document with 174 state parties that must comply with its provisions, subject to certain Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations (RUDs) presented prior to their ratification of the treaty.

There is great diversity in the styles and intensity of protests in different contexts, but it is commonplace for efforts to confront repressive state policies to be labeled aggressive no matter the level of public disruption. Police violence against protestors only enhances feelings of anger and frustration, pushing people towards acts of desperation. It has become frighteningly clear that, whether escalated or nonviolent, protests will receive brutal opposition.

For states who have legal obligations to protect peaceful assembly, this should be a source of great concern. When a civilian population produces signs of unrest, it is often because they lack the means to survive and do not experience a high quality of life. The level of protest intensity must draw governments to consider the severity of the circumstances, rather than becoming a justification for violence.

Advocates Call for a Torture-Free Trade Treaty

In response to the routine misuse of KIPs as a method of crowd-control, advocates around the world are working to establish a Torture-Free Trade Treaty. In 2017, Amnesty International and the Omega Research Foundation collaborated on a report describing the tools used to inflict torture, which included KIPs. Dr. Alice Edwards, the Special Rapporteur on Torture, recommended a Torture-Free Trade Treaty in her 2023 report on torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In the forty years since the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was adopted (UNCAT), survivors of torture have been speaking out about their experiences, urgently demanding for measures to protect people from harm and provide the necessary redress for those who have lived through this treatment.

A Torture-Free Trade Treaty would reduce the risk of excessive force by limiting accessibility to weapons like KIPs. It is time for the United Nations to take more decisive action to protect people from inhumane treatment, which includes harsh punitive measures inflicted on protestors.

Even with reforms, the desire for social change may never disappear. Protest will continue to be a relevant and impactful method of seeking progress, so it is paramount that world leaders defend this fundamental right and create the necessary legal protections for those engaging in demonstrations.

The Annual Report on Torture 2019 of National Campaign against Torture responds to the question in the negative. According to the Report, on average there are five custodial deaths per day in India (including police and judicial custody) with majority of deaths in police custody being caused due to torture. Victims are primarily subjected to torture to either gather information during investigation, to extract confessions, and sometimes for bribes. The World Organisation Against Torture, Geneva, in the Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2022) highlights the regularity of use of such violent methods as a strategy by LEA. It can be averred that that clearly, such glaring numbers and reports of the severity of violent instances hint at the existence of an abnormality in the system.

The issue lies in the culture of functioning of the LEA and the internalised acceptance of violence as a routine affair by the society at large. It may appear as a reckless thought, but both stem from the utilitarian consequentialist philosophy of ‘greatest amount of good for the greatest number.’ In other words, maintenance of law and order and delivery of justice is of prime importance irrespective of the manner in which it is achieved. This is the reason why movies which celebrate a cop beating up the bad guys get the loudest whistles in the theatres. Going a step deeper, this need to eliminate deviant behaviour can be associated with primal human survival instincts. The power structures (both political and societal) are a reflection of raw survival mechanisms. The striking imbalance of power between the police and the public ensures the perpetuation of control through fear and vice versa (M Foucault, Discipline & Punish: the birth of the Prison, Penguin Random House, 2019). On this intersection of power, control, and fear, the imperialists previously and the democracies currently continue to thrive. Lastly, it would be unfair to turn a blind eye to the overburdened LEA. According to the Government data in 2022, the police-public ratio in India stood at 192.23 per lakh of the population. This workload augmented by the pressure from superiors, the public, and poor investigation infrastructure enhances the frustration of the officials, consequently causing an outburst of aggression manifesting in the form of torture. Sometimes, it is not even important to solve the crime as long as it appears so. For instance, members of Kuravar community (a sub-caste of dalit community) are often implicated in false cases (which eventually result in acquittals) by extracting forced confessions through custodial torture.

Somewhere in the midst of the interplay of these factors, the LEA and the society become immune to the ‘everydayness’ of custodial violence. Additionally, lack of adequate statutory safeguards impliedly legitimizes the act of torture. India has signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1984 (Torture Convention) in 1997, but it has not yet ratified it through the enactment of a domestic law. Moreover, the criminal procedural law of India vests responsibility on the judiciary, particularly the Magistracy, to keep a check on instances of custodial torture. But these are exercised in a mechanical positivist manner. Thus, making torture invisible and natural to the system. Severity of such violence becomes a point of concern in selected cases, for instance, when it results in death, or when the violence is such so as to shock humanity, or when the accused is from the extremely poor echelons of the society. However, a slap does not raise eyebrows. It is tough, nay, impossible, for the society or the police to accept a ‘slap’ as a form of torture.

Although the Government of India has declared its commitment to ratify the Torture Convention, it is of the opinion that the existing criminal laws of the country ensure adequate protection against torture. The stand of the Government of treating torture at par with other crimes under the penal code reflects its ignorance about the special nature of the offence of torture. In torture there is an inherent imbalance of power. The perpetrator enjoys a position of power and exerts it on the victim. When the public official tortures the victim then there is breach of the ‘duty of care’, as the officials are responsible to protect those under their custody. Such breach therefore warrants a special law that defines the term ‘custodial torture’ encompassing ‘severity’, ‘purpose’ and ‘powerlessness’ in line with the definition of torture contained in Article 1 of the Torture Convention.

The Legacy Act has been condemned by victims, families, human rights groups and campaigners, and is opposed by every political party in Northern Ireland. The backlash was prompted by the legislation effectively shutting down the “Package of Measures” —a system of mechanisms that has successfully facilitated information recovery in the absence of a formal truth and reconciliation mechanism in the Good Friday Agreement (1998).

Given that the Irish government has taken such a strong stance on this issue, it may come as a surprise that there is no systemic process for investigating legacy human rights violations in Ireland.

Ireland ratified the ECHR in 1953. Therefore, the State has a legal obligation to investigate loss of life, instances of torture and other forms of ill-treatment – including those committed by An Garda Síochána, the Irish police service. However, victims can currently only submit a complaint to the Office of the Police Ombudsman within one year of an alleged incident.

As a result, victims of the ‘Heavy Gang’ — a group of police officers who used unlawful tactics (including torture) to extract false confessions up until the 1980s — are being denied justice.

Currently, a miscarriage of justice can be reviewed under the Criminal Procedural Act 1993. However, this only applies to cases where there is a “new or newly discovered fact”. Given that the existence and practices of the ‘Heavy Gang’ have been documented, it is unlikely that the rights of victims will be vindicated using this mechanism. Critically, it fails to investigate or address the culture of impunity that allowed these human rights violations to occur, nor does it assign individual criminal responsibility.

Other violations of Articles 2 and 3 that have not been sufficiently investigated include deaths in custody, and the role of An Garda Síochána and the State in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974.

This is explored in a new cross-border report published by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and the Committee on the Administration of Justice. The report recommends the establishment of three mechanisms that would fulfil the State’s legal obligations to conduct public, prompt, independent and thorough investigations into Article 2 and 3 violations.

The first recommendation is for the Irish government to establish an independent, time-bound Historical Investigations Unit (HIU). The HIU would have the power to initiate and oversee police investigations into unresolved deaths and incidents of torture or ill-treatment, and to assign individual criminal responsibility. The HIU would not be limited to investigating conflict-related cases. It would also be given the authority to investigate other miscarriages of justice from the Troubles onwards, such as the 2011 death of Shane O’Farrell.

The second recommendation is for a system of strong, robust and independent public inquiries and inquests. However, new legislation will likely be required to ensure human rights compliance. Recent experience with the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes and Certain Related Matters has been a stark reminder of how existing inquiries are often ad hoc and lack transparency, leading to limited State accountability and unsatisfactory outcomes for victims.

Our final recommendation is for the establishment of an all-Ireland truth commission to promote reconciliation, accountability, and cross-border truth recovery for victims and families. This mechanism would examine the systemic conditions and culture that enabled abuses and impunity on both sides of the border.

The purpose of the recommended mechanisms is to vindicate the rights of victims, survivors, and their families to an effective investigation, to access justice, to truth, and to guarantees of non-reoccurrence. It is a legal and moral imperative for the Irish government to abide by its ECHR obligations and finally grant victims and survivors of human rights violations the answers and remedies they deserve.