Torture and third-degree methods represent the antithesis of constitutional democracy and civilised governance. These practices—involving deliberate infliction of physical or mental pain by state authorities to extract confessions, obtain information, or intimidate individuals—fundamentally violate the core constitutional protections available to every person under the Indian Constitution. The notion of human dignity and personal liberty are not negotiable commodities or instrumental means to achieve law enforcement objectives; they are constitutional absolutes that cannot be suspended, circumscribed, or justified under any circumstances, no matter how pressing the state interest. The Indian judiciary has evolved a sophisticated framework through dynamic interpretation of Articles 21, 22, and 20 to establish that torture and third-degree methods are unconstitutional, violative of human dignity, destructive of personal liberty, and destructive of the rule of law itself.
PART I: CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
& HUMAN RIGHTS CONCEPT (4-5 marks)
A. ARTICLE 21: THE CORNERSTONE OF
HUMAN RIGHTS
The
foundation of protection against torture lies in Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution, which states: “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.” This
provision has undergone transformative judicial interpretation from its narrow
application in early judgments to a comprehensive protection of dignity and
personal liberty.
Evolution
of Article 21 Interpretation:
In
the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme
Court overruled the restrictive approach taken in A.K. Gopalan v. State of
Madras (1950) and held that:
•
Article 21 protects not merely animal existence
but the right to live with human dignity
•
The phrase “procedure established by law” must
be fair, just, and reasonable—not arbitrary, oppressive, or fanciful
•
Life encompasses access to all elements
necessary for dignified existence
•
Personal liberty extends beyond mere physical
freedom to include freedom from torture, degradation, and inhuman treatment
This
interpretative shift was crucial in establishing that torture, being inherently
degrading and inhuman, violates Article 21 absolutely.
B. THE “GOLDEN TRIANGLE” OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
The
Maneka Gandhi judgment established the interconnected nature of Articles 14,
19, and 21—popularly known as the “Golden Triangle”—in protecting human
rights:
•
Article 14 (Right to Equality): Torture
violates equality as it treats individuals as objects to be abused
•
Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and
Movement): Torture effectively silences persons and restricts their liberty
•
Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal
Liberty): Torture directly attacks dignity and personal liberty
Any
law or procedure depriving personal liberty must satisfy the tests of all three
Articles.
C. ARTICLE 22 & ARTICLE
20(3): PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS
•
Article 22(1): Mandates that arrested
persons be informed of grounds of arrest and have right to legal counsel
•
Article 22(2): Requires production before
magistrate within 24 hours; detention beyond this requires judicial approval
•
Article 20(3): Protects against
self-incrimination—torture-extracted confessions are therefore invalid and
unconstitutional
PART II: LANDMARK JUDICIAL
PRONOUNCEMENTS (7-8 marks)
A. MANEKA GANDHI v. UNION OF
INDIA (1978)—DIGNITY FOUNDATION
Holding:
Human dignity is inherent to every person. “Procedure established by law” must
be reasonable, fair, and just. Any deprivation of personal liberty must be
procedurally and substantively fair.
Significance
for Torture: This case established that arbitrary state action affecting
personal liberty is unconstitutional, laying the foundation for subsequent
cases prohibiting torture.
B. PREM SHANKAR SHUKLA v. DELHI
ADMINISTRATION (1980)—DIGNITY IN ACTION
Facts:
Prison authorities routinely handcuffed all prisoners. Petitioner, classified
as “better class” prisoner, challenged this.
Key
Holdings: - Routine handcuffing without specific, compelling reasons is prima
facie inhuman and unreasonable - Such practices resort to “zoological
strategies” incompatible with human dignity - Handcuffing violates Articles
14, 19, and 21 - Officers must justify handcuffing in writing before judges
for approval - Prisoners cannot be classified into different categories for
differential treatment
Significance:
This case demonstrated that even non-violent indignities—practices that don’t
physically torture but degrade—violate Article 21. It established the principle
that dignity protection extends to every aspect of police-citizen interaction.
C. D.K. BASU v. STATE OF WEST
BENGAL (1996-1997)—COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK
Background:
Following widespread custodial deaths and torture, Dr. D.K. Basu (Legal
Aid Services, West Bengal) wrote to the Chief Justice of India (August 26,
1986), prompting Supreme Court action.
Three
Core Propositions (Directly Addressing Torture):
1.
Custodial violence including torture, rape,
and death infringes Article 21 AND basic human rights
2.
Convicts, prisoners, and under-trial
detainees retain fundamental rights under Article 21—only legally
permissible restrictions apply; they remain human beings
3.
Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman,
degrading treatment violates Article 21 whether during investigation,
interrogation, or any custodial stage
11
Procedural Guidelines (Key Provisions Relevant to Torture Prevention):
|
Guideline |
Purpose |
|
Identification
& Name Tags |
Enable
accountability; identify perpetrators of torture |
|
Arrest
Memo with Witness |
Document
created immediately; prevent false/undocumented arrests where torture occurs |
|
Notify
Relatives (8-12 hours) |
Person’s
whereabouts known; facilitates intervention if torture occurs |
|
Detention
Diary Entry |
Official
record; documents person’s condition on arrival |
|
Medical
Examination at Arrest |
Detect
existing injuries; prevent torture; document baseline condition |
|
Medical
Examination Every 48 Hours |
Ongoing
monitoring; detect torture injuries; evidence preservation |
|
Inspection
Memo (signed by both) |
Document
injuries; create evidence against torture claims |
|
Access
to Lawyer During Interrogation |
Legal
protection; inhibits torture |
|
Police
Control Room (24x7) |
Monitoring;
creates accountability structure; deters torture |
Critical
Holding on Interrogation: “Interrogation though essential must be conducted
on scientific and humane principles; third-degree methods are totally
impermissible.”
State
Liability: The State is vicariously liable for custodial torture by
its agents; victims have right to compensation; non-compliance constitutes
contempt of court.
D. JOGINDER SINGH v. STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH (1994)—PREVENTING UNNECESSARY ARREST
Holding:
- Arrest is not mandatory even in cognizable offences - Police must justify
necessity of arrest - Unnecessary arrest can be prevented by issuing notice to
attend police station - This reduces custodial torture by reducing unnecessary
police custody
Significance:
Addresses torture prevention at the source—by limiting unnecessary arrests that
precede torture.
E.
RECENT JUDICIAL STANCE
Recent
judgments (2024-2025) continue to hold that: - Torture is never justified, even
for serious crimes or national security - State terrorism cannot be answer to
terrorism - Scientific interrogation must replace coercive methods - Custodial
violence continues to plague India; zero convictions despite hundreds of cases
(2018-2022)
PART III: STATUTORY PROVISIONS
(3-4 marks)
A. BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS)
2023—SECTION 120
Text:
“Whoever voluntarily causes hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer
any confession or any information which may lead to detection of offense or
misconduct shall be punished with imprisonment extending to 7 years and
fine.”
Section
120(2) - Grievous Hurt: Punishment extended to 10 years + fine
Significance:
Directly criminalizes torture to extract confessions. Makes third-degree
methods a specific statutory offence.
B. BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA
SANHITA (BNSS) 2023—SECTION 35
Mandates
that arrests and detentions follow legally valid, clearly documented
procedures; ensures procedural regularity.
C. BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM
(BSA) 2023—SECTION 22
Confessions
obtained under inducement, threat, coercion, or promise are legally
inadmissible. Renders torture counterproductive—confessions extracted
through torture cannot be used in court.
PART IV: JUDICIAL ATTITUDE &
CORE PRINCIPLES (3-4 marks)
A. TORTURE IS NEVER JUSTIFIED
The
judiciary has consistently held that: - No emergency, war, national security,
or compelling state interest justifies torture - Third-degree methods are
prohibited even for heinous crimes (murder, rape, terrorism) - State cannot
resort to torture to speed up investigations - Balance between liberty and
security CANNOT sacrifice basic dignity
B. HUMAN DIGNITY IS INVIOLABLE
AND ABSOLUTE
•
Dignity is inherent in every person by virtue of
being human
•
Severity of crime does not reduce dignity; even
criminals retain dignity rights
•
Dignity is not conditional on social status,
education, or wealth
•
Both substance AND procedure must respect
dignity
C. PERSONAL LIBERTY CANNOT BE
SUSPENDED
• ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, verdict upheld the suspension of Article 21 enforcement during Emergency, but this was a deeply controversial ruling, later corrected by the 44th Amendment and overruled by the Supreme Court in the 2017 Puttaswamy case, making Articles 20 and 21 non-derogable today.
•
Prisoners retain fundamental rights; only
legally permissible restrictions apply
•
Police must protect liberty; they cannot become
“depredators of civil liberties”
D. STATE LIABILITY FOR CUSTODIAL
TORTURE
•
State is vicariously liable; individual official
liability insufficient
•
Sovereign immunity does not override
constitutional rights
•
Compensation is mandatory; mere release is
inadequate remedy
•
Victims have right to damages under Articles 32
and 226
E. SCIENTIFIC INTERROGATION, NOT
TORTURE
•
Interrogation is legitimate police function
•
BUT it must be “sustained and scientific”
•
Modern investigative techniques must replace
coercive methods
•
Dignity and rights are non-negotiable in
investigation process
PART V: HOW TORTURE NEGATES HUMAN
RIGHTS (2-3 marks)
|
Right
Violated |
How
Negated |
|
Right to Life
(Article 21) |
Torture reduces life to sub-human level;
causes physical/mental death |
|
Human Dignity |
Direct attack on dignity; humiliation and
degradation |
|
Personal Liberty |
Arbitrary exercise of state power; removal
of freedom |
|
Bodily Integrity |
Physical injuries, scars, permanent damage |
|
Mental Health |
PTSD, psychological trauma, mental
breakdown lasting lifetime |
|
Fair Trial Right |
Torture-extracted confessions are
unreliable; deny accused fair defense |
|
Right Against
Self-Incrimination (Art. 20(3)) |
Torture forces confession; violates Article
20(3) |
|
Equality Before
Law (Art. 14) |
Vulnerable communities (Dalits, Adivasis,
Muslims) predominantly tortured |
CONCLUSION (2-3 marks)
Torture and third-degree methods are fundamentally
incompatible with constitutional democracy. They violate multiple fundamental
rights (Articles 21, 20(3), 22), destroy the rule of law, produce unreliable
evidence, and corrupt the criminal justice system. The Indian judiciary,
through landmark judgments (Maneka Gandhi, Prem Shankar Shukla, D.K.
Basu), has established that torture can never be justified—not by
investigation needs, not by national security, not by crime severity, not by
any state interest.
The notion of human dignity is absolute and inviolable.
Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee that cannot be negotiated. The
modern criminal justice system must rely on scientific interrogation, not
coercion. The State’s responsibility is to protect constitutional rights, not
to depredated them. While the D.K. Basu guidelines have created the framework
for prevention, implementation remains weak. India must ratify the Convention
Against Torture (UNCAT), strengthen accountability mechanisms, ensure training
of police personnel, and hold errant officials to account through criminal
prosecution, not merely departmental enquiries.
The protection of human dignity and personal liberty
from torture is not a luxury of civilised societies; it is the foundation of
constitutional democracy itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment