Karvaan India's Spotlight: 450 Deaths in Jharkhand’s Custody. The Silence Behind the Lock-Up Doors.

Spotlight Podcast : https://url-shortener.me/DWZP Video Explainer

https://video.wixstatic.com/video/0acabf_afa51d6db95649499c1cc02df653d53c/720p/mp4/file.mp4

The Lead

450 Deaths in Jharkhand’s Custody ! Nearly 450 people have died in police and judicial custody in Jharkhand between 2018 and 2025, according to data submitted by the state itself.

This week, the Jharkhand High Court asked a question that goes beyond numbers. In each of these deaths, was the mandatory judicial inquiry conducted as required under criminal law.

When a person dies in state custody, the burden of explanation rests squarely on the State. If compliance with statutory safeguards cannot be clearly demonstrated, constitutional accountability is no longer abstract. It becomes immediate.

The Context | How We Got Here

The case arises from a Public Interest Litigation filed in 2022 after legislative replies revealed over 160 custodial deaths between 2018 and 2022. Updated figures placed before the court now indicate roughly 437 to 450 deaths up to 2025.

A Division Bench led by Chief Justice M S Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed that the affidavit filed by the Home Department does not clearly indicate whether judicial magistrate inquiries were conducted in every case as mandated under Section 176 1 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Bench has directed the Home Secretary to file a comprehensive affidavit clarifying whether such inquiries were held in each case, whether the cause of death was determined through an independent judicial process, and whether safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita were followed for deaths reported after 2023.

The matter will be heard again in March 2026.

At its core, the dispute concerns whether statutory protections designed to prevent abuse are functioning in practice.

The Constitutional Frame

Custodial death cases sit at the intersection of criminal procedure and constitutional rights. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. That protection does not cease once a person is detained.

The Supreme Court of India in the D K Basu judgment laid down safeguards against custodial torture, including mandatory documentation, medical examination and transparency in arrest procedures. In 2020, the Court directed installation of CCTV cameras in police stations nationwide to strengthen accountability in custody spaces.

Section 176 1 A of the CrPC reflects the same constitutional logic. It mandates that when a person dies, disappears, or is alleged to have been assaulted in custody, a judicial magistrate shall hold an inquiry.

Independent scrutiny is not procedural excess. It is the mechanism by which constitutional guarantees are tested inside spaces controlled entirely by the State.

The Administrative Question

The state has reportedly raised a technical issue regarding interpretation. The statute refers to a Magistrate, but does it require a Judicial Magistrate or can an Executive Magistrate suffice

This distinction carries institutional consequences. Judicial Magistrates function within the judiciary and remain structurally independent of the executive branch. Executive Magistrates operate within the executive hierarchy.

If oversight remains within the executive chain of command, inquiry risks appearing as internal certification rather than independent review.

The High Court’s insistence on clarification signals that compliance must not only exist on paper. It must be institutionally credible.

India’s Broader Record

Jharkhand’s figures must be situated within India’s national experience. Data compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau consistently shows that custodial deaths occur every year across multiple states.

Recent NCRB data has typically recorded between 100 and 200 police custody deaths annually nationwide. Judicial custody deaths are significantly higher, often ranging between 1,800 and 2,200 per year. Most judicial custody deaths are officially attributed to illness, suicide or natural causes.

The National Human Rights Commission receives mandatory intimation of every custodial death. In successive annual reviews, the Commission has highlighted recurring delays in submission of magisterial inquiry reports by states and uneven compliance with procedural safeguards.

Prison statistics further complicate the picture. India’s prison occupancy rate has frequently exceeded 120 percent capacity in several states. Undertrial prisoners constitute more than three quarters of the total prison population. Overcrowding, inadequate medical staffing and infrastructural deficits increase vulnerability, particularly for detainees with untreated health conditions.

These structural realities do not establish wrongdoing in every instance. They do, however, underscore why independent judicial inquiry is indispensable.

Lessons from Other States

Experience from across India demonstrates that custodial deaths become institutional flashpoints when oversight mechanisms are weak or delayed.

In Tamil Nadu, the deaths of Jayaraj and Bennix in 2020 led to widespread protests and direct judicial intervention by the Madras High Court. The investigation was transferred to an independent central agency and several police personnel were arrested. The episode showed how early and visible judicial monitoring can restore credibility when public trust collapses.

Uttar Pradesh has frequently recorded among the highest numbers of police custody deaths in NCRB data. Parliamentary disclosures over recent years have shown the state accounting for a significant share of police custody fatalities nationwide. High visibility interventions in select cases have occurred, yet the scale of reported incidents continues to invite scrutiny. The lesson is that numerical scale without transparent inquiry invites sustained litigation and national attention.

In Maharashtra, periodic spikes in judicial custody deaths have been linked to prison overcrowding and health related factors. Civil society groups have raised concerns regarding timely medical intervention and documentation. Even when deaths are medically attributed, absence of robust inquiry weakens public confidence.

Punjab has faced scrutiny over unnatural prison deaths and alleged custodial violence. Human rights advocates have repeatedly demanded independent post mortem procedures and stronger external monitoring.

Across states, one pattern emerges. Where judicial inquiry is prompt, transparent and clearly documented, institutional damage is contained. Where compliance is unclear or delayed, distrust deepens.

The Social Stakes

Custodial deaths disproportionately affect individuals with limited economic and social capital. Many are undertrials awaiting adjudication, migrants or members of marginalised communities with restricted access to legal representation.

When deaths occur within environments wholly controlled by the State, transparency is not optional. It is foundational to democratic legitimacy.

Failure to clearly demonstrate compliance with judicial inquiry requirements risks normalising opacity.

Between the Lines | The Accumulating Risk

Nearly 450 custodial deaths in seven years is not episodic. It appears systemic.

Even if a substantial proportion of these deaths are medically explained, the absence of demonstrable judicial scrutiny in each case creates a cumulative credibility deficit. Each unanswered procedural question compounds the next.

If safeguards exist but are inconsistently applied, citizens receive a troubling message. Oversight appears contingent rather than mandatory.

Over time, that perception can erode institutional trust more deeply than any individual case.

The Global Lens

Across democracies, custodial deaths trigger automatic independent review mechanisms. In the United Kingdom, deaths in custody are examined by bodies institutionally separate from routine police control. In the United States, high profile custodial deaths have prompted federal investigations and structural reform debates.

India’s statutory framework already embeds the principle of independent scrutiny through judicial magistrate inquiries. The challenge lies not in legislative design but in consistent implementation.

What Comes Next

The Jharkhand High Court has directed the state to file a detailed affidavit clarifying compliance in each reported custodial death between 2018 and 2025. The court will examine whether judicial inquiries were conducted, whether statutory safeguards under the new criminal code were observed, and whether National Human Rights Commission guidelines were followed.

Depending on the clarity of the state’s response, the matter may remain a procedural clarification or evolve into a broader judicial intervention on custodial accountability mechanisms. Voices | Who Said What

The Jharkhand High Court observed that the affidavit submitted by the state was unclear on a central issue: whether the cause of death in each custodial case had been determined through an independent judicial inquiry as required under law. The Bench noted that given the scale of reported deaths, it was essential to ascertain whether statutory safeguards designed to rule out foul play had been duly complied with.

Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Md Shadab Ansari, argued that the executive cannot determine on its own whether a custodial death was natural or otherwise. Such determination, he submitted, must be made by a judicial magistrate in accordance with Section 176 1 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also alleged that police custody deaths are often underreported, suggesting that alternative narratives such as escape or suicide are sometimes used to reduce official police custody figures.

Appearing for the state, counsel Gaurav Raj informed the court that case wise details of magisterial inquiries had been furnished earlier and that the present issue concerns clarification of the term Magistrate under the CrPC and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. According to the state’s position, the question is whether the statutory reference to Magistrate necessarily means a Judicial Magistrate or whether an Executive Magistrate may also fulfil the requirement.

The court has now directed the Home Secretary to file a fresh and comprehensive affidavit clarifying compliance in each reported custodial death case before the next hearing.

Editor’s Lens | Karvaan’s Spotlight

Custodial death cases are stress tests for the rule of law. When the State detains a person, it assumes total control over that person’s liberty, environment and access to care. In such circumstances, the burden of explanation shifts decisively onto the State.

The requirement of a judicial magistrate inquiry exists because power in custody is asymmetrical. A detainee cannot gather evidence from within a lock up. Families cannot observe what occurs behind institutional walls. Documentation remains in official hands. Independent scrutiny is the only credible counterbalance.

Nearly 450 custodial deaths over seven years in one state demand transparency that goes beyond technical interpretation of statutory language. If inquiries were conducted in every case, the State should be able to demonstrate that fact clearly and systematically. If they were not, the reasons must withstand constitutional examination.

India’s national record shows that custodial deaths are not rare anomalies. They occur every year across multiple states. What distinguishes a functioning constitutional system is not the absence of death, but the certainty of independent accountability.

The question before the court may appear narrow, focused on the meaning of the word Magistrate. In reality, it asks whether safeguards designed to restrain state power are functioning as intended. It asks whether constitutional guarantees survive the moment a citizen enters custody.

In a democracy governed by law, accountability is not presumed. It is proven.