Court Orders & Legal Analysis.

Jharkhand High Court Directs Comprehensive Reporting on Custodial Deaths in PIL

Case Overview

The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, in a significant development in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1218 of 2022, has reiterated its directive for greater transparency regarding custodial deaths in the state. The petition, filed by Md Mumtaz Ansari and represented by advocate Md. Shadab Ansari, targets the State of Jharkhand and other respondents. The case addresses systemic issues of deaths occurring in various forms of custody, highlighting concerns over accountability in prisons, police stations, and transit.

The bench, comprising the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar, with the state represented by Mr. Gaurav Raj (Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General-II), issued the order on November 27, 2025. This follows a prior directive dated September 25, 2025, aimed at compiling data on custodial fatalities.

Background and Legal Context

This PIL underscores ongoing human rights challenges in Jharkhand, where custodial deaths—encompassing fatalities in prisons, judicial custody, police lockups, and during police transit—remain a critical issue. The petition seeks to expose patterns of such incidents, potentially invoking constitutional protections under Articles 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and 32/226 (remedies for enforcement of rights) of the Indian Constitution.

The judgment notes that while India has seen precedents like the DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) Supreme Court guidelines mandating safeguards against custodial torture, state-level compliance often falls short. This case builds on that legacy by demanding detailed, verifiable data to assess implementation and prevent violations.

Court's Observations and Directions

In the order, the court observed that the affidavit submitted by the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, complied partially with the September 2025 directive but was limited to deaths in prisons and judicial custody. It explicitly excluded data on deaths in "police transit/police custody," creating an incomplete picture.

Key excerpt from the judgment:
"In the given facts, we deem it appropriate to once again direct the Principal Secretary to file a personal affidavit and indicate all cases of death in police custody and police transit."

The bench emphasized the need for a holistic report, stating:
"Obviously the data pertaining to the deaths in police transit/police custody could not be contained in such affidavit."

Implications and Next Steps

The court's directive for a fresh personal affidavit within three weeks, with the matter listed for hearing on December 18, 2025, signals a push for accountability. This could lead to broader reforms, including investigations into unreported cases and policy enhancements to curb custodial violence. For legal professionals, it reinforces the judiciary's role in monitoring executive compliance in human rights matters, while for the public, it highlights the urgency of addressing opaque practices in law enforcement.

By mandating inclusion of police custody data, the High Court aims to bridge informational gaps, potentially influencing similar PILs nationwide and fostering greater public trust in custodial systems.