IMPORTANT POINTS
Unnatural custodial deaths are violation of Article 21.
These deaths call for accountability of officials and compensation to the victims.
There is urgent need for prison reforms and it may require performance audit by CAG.

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Custodial violence has always been a matter of great concern for all civilized societies. Custodial violence could take the form of third degree methods to extract information – the method used need not result in any physical violence but could be in the form of psychological violence. Custodial violence could also include a violation of bodily integrity through sexual violence – it could be to satisfy the lust of a person in authority or for some other reason. The ‘Mathura Rape Case’ is one such incident that most are familiar with. Custodial violence could, sometimes, lead to the death of its victim who is in a terribly disadvantaged and vulnerable condition. All these forms of custodial violence make it abhorrent and invite disparagement from all sections of civilized society.

2. Like most societies, we are not strangers to custodial violence and unnatural deaths but our vibrant democracy permits us to debate and discuss these issues with rational arguments. However, right sounding noises critical of custodial violence (in any form) cannot achieve any useful purpose unless persons in authority hear the voices of the victims or the silence of the dead and act on them by taking remedial steps. There must be a greater degree of sensitivity among those in authority with regard to persons in custody and it has been the endeavour of the constitutional courts in our country, over several decades, to consistently flag this issue. The results have been somewhat mixed but the effort will continue as long as Article 21 remains in our Constitution. This message goes out loud and clear, as also the message that the dignity of the individual is not a plaything for those in authority.

3. Chief Justice R. C. Lahoti highlighted one aspect of custodial deaths, namely, unnatural deaths in prisons. This was through a letter addressed to this Court which has been treated as a public interest litigation. We have been very ably assisted in understanding the concern raised and in appreciating different perspectives on the issue by the learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Gaurav Agrawal who has spent considerable time and effort in placing all relevant material before us and for this he deserves our gratitude.

4. In our judgment and order of 5th February, 2016 [] we had drawn attention to four issues regarding prisons raised in the letter addressed by former Re- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2016) 3 SCC 700 Chief Justice Lahoti. The four issues are:

(i) Overcrowding in prisons;

(ii) Unnatural death of prisoners;

(iii) Gross inadequacy of staff, and

(iv) Available staff being untrained or inadequately trained

5. In the order of 5th February, 2016 we had dealt with the issue of overcrowding in prisons and had issued certain directions. In the present decision, we consider unnatural deaths in prisons. On this issue of unnatural deaths in prisons, the only reliable information available is from the National Crime Records Bureau or the NCRB. The website of the NCRB [ncrb.gov.in] indicates that deaths in judicial custody, both natural and unnatural, are as under:

6. The distinction made by the NCRB between natural and unnatural deaths is unclear. For example, if a prisoner dies due to a lack of proper medical attention or timely medical attention, would that be classified as a natural death or an unnatural death? This needs to be explained as submitted by the learned Amicus.

7. Be that as it may, the break-up of unnatural deaths given by the NCRB on its website is as under: