When the Supreme Court recently revisited the issue of custodial torture—following poor compliance with its 2020 Paramvir Singh Saini order mandating CCTV cameras—the discussion resurfaced around a deeper sociological problem: Why does custodial violence persist in a democratic, constitutional state?
Reports of 11 custodial deaths in eight months in Rajasthan are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a systemic malaise embedded in policing, social hierarchy, and state power.

Custodial violence is not merely a legal violation; it is a sociological phenomenon involving power, inequality, institutional culture, and the logic of punitive governance.

Understanding Custodial Violence: Beyond Law, Into Sociology

Though not legally defined, custodial violence involves torture, assault, humiliation, sexual abuse, and deaths during police or judicial custody.
Sociology frames this not as individual deviance but as a structural product of institutionalised power.

• Michel Foucault: Discipline, Surveillance, and the Carceral State

Foucault’s work (Discipline and Punish) is central to understanding policing in India. He argued that modern states use surveillance, discipline, and punishment to control bodies.
Indian custodial torture reflects:

• disciplinary power (coercing the body to extract truth),
• sovereign power (inflicting pain as demonstration of state authority), and
• biopolitical power (regulating populations through fear).

CCTV cameras—mandated by the SC—attempt to check this power, but weak compliance shows that the disciplinary apparatus resists its own reform.

• Weber and the Monopoly of Legitimate Violence

Max Weber argued that the state claims a monopoly over “legitimate violence.”
In India, this legitimacy is often stretched into excessive and illegal coercion, justified socially as “tough policing” and institutionally as “investigative necessity.”

• Loïc Wacquant: Punitive State and Marginalised Communities

Wacquant’s idea of punitive neoliberalism suggests that modern states use policing to manage poverty and social disorder rather than address structural inequalities.
India mirrors this pattern: the majority of custodial torture victims come from:

• Dalits
• Adivasis
• minorities
• migrant labourers
• urban poor

Custody becomes a tool for disciplining the marginalised.

• Ambedkar and Caste Power

Ambedkar warned that institutions reflect society’s caste mindset.
Custodial violence disproportionately targets lower-caste groups because it continues the logic of graded inequality, where certain bodies are considered less valuable, more punishable, and less deserving of dignity.

Historical Sociology of Custodial Violence in India

• Ancient and Medieval Systems

From Arthashastra’s mutilation punishments to Shariat-based corporal disciplines, early Indian governance normalised physical coercion.

• Colonial Era: The Police Act of 1861

Created after the 1857 revolt, the 1861 Act built a police force not for service, but for control.
Torture and extraction of confessions were systematic tools of colonial rule.

• Post-Independence Continuity

Independent India retained colonial policing structures with minimal reform.
Durkheim’s idea that institutions persist through “social facts” explains why violent policing remained: it was embedded in the institutional memory of the police.

2023–24 NHRC data—2,346 judicial custody deaths and 160 police custody deaths—show how entrenched the problem remains.

Regulatory Framework: Constitutional & Legal Safeguards

Sociologically, the Indian Constitution acts as a counter-power to the violence of the state.

Constitutional Protections

• Article 21: dignity, life, freedom from torture
• Article 20(1): protection from retrospective punishment
• Article 20(3): protection from forced confessions

These provisions represent what T.H. Marshall called “social and civil rights of citizenship.”

New Criminal Codes (2023): BNS, BNSS, BSA

They criminalise torture-induced confessions and mandate procedural transparency.
However, requiring government sanction for prosecuting police officers protects the institution more than victims, reflecting Weber’s bureaucratic self-preservation.

International Human Rights Framework

India is committed to UDHR and ICCPR, yet has not ratified UNCAT, signalling ambivalence toward global anti-torture norms.

Why Custodial Violence Persists: A Sociological Diagnosis

1. Weak Legal Framework & Institutional Impunity

The absence of a clear anti-torture law and the requirement of state sanction for prosecution form what Bourdieu calls “symbolic power”—the ability of the state to define acceptable violence.

2. Colonial Policing Culture

The police still operate under a colonial ethos of controlling subjects rather than serving citizens.
William Bonger’s theory of authoritarian-crime linkage explains this: authoritarian institutions generate coercive cultures.

3. Societal Approval of Violence

Society often celebrates “encounter cops” and third-degree methods.
This reflects Durkheim’s notion of collective conscience, where social approval reinforces institutional deviance.

4. Lack of Professional Capacity

Relying on torture as an investigative shortcut stems from:

• poor forensic infrastructure
• limited training
• lack of scientific tools
• stress and burnout
• corruption

This aligns with Goffman’s idea of total institutions, where extreme pressures distort behaviour.

5. Weak Oversight Mechanisms

NHRC recommendations remain advisory.
Judicial delays, weak magisterial inquiries, and non-functional CCTV systems create a culture of bureaucratic opacity, the opposite of the transparency needed for accountability.

6. Structural Violence (Johan Galtung)

Custodial torture is not only direct physical violence; it is also structural, arising from:

• caste inequality
• poverty
• lack of legal literacy
• marginalisation

Thus, the poor and oppressed experience the state not as protector, but as punisher.

Reforming Policing: Sociological Pathways to Prevent Custodial Torture

1. Define Custodial Violence and Ratify UNCAT

A clear legal definition dismantles loopholes.
Ratification would align India with global human rights norms, reinforcing a culture of legal universalism.

2. Strengthen Transparency Through Technology

• functioning CCTV cameras
• digital arrest records
• real-time monitoring (CCTNS)

Technology introduces Foucauldian counter-surveillance—the state watching the watchers.

3. Professionalisation of Police Work

Training must include:

• non-coercive interrogation
• forensic skills
• human rights sensitisation
• de-escalation techniques
• psychological training

This transforms policing from a force to a service, shifting institutional habitus.

4. Empower NHRC and State Human Rights Commissions

Giving them binding powers ensures that institutions cannot ignore violations.
This strengthens accountability and weakens the culture of impunity.

5. Public Awareness and Legal Literacy

Citizens must know:

• arrest rights
• rights against self-incrimination
• medical examination rights
• right to lawyer & family information

Collective awareness empowers resistance to everyday state violence.

Conclusion: Ending Custodial Violence Requires Transforming the State-Society Relationship

Custodial violence in India is not an aberration—it is a product of historical legacies, institutional design, power structures, and social attitudes.
Legal fixes alone are insufficient.
We need a sociological transformation:

• demilitarising the police
• dismantling impunity
• professionalising investigations
• strengthening rights-based culture
• ensuring social accountability

Ultimately, as Ambedkar warned, a democratic constitution is only as effective as the social structure supporting it.
Ending custodial torture requires reimagining policing not as domination but as public service rooted in dignity, justice, and human rights.