State cannot escape liability for a custodial death even if the death is by suicide by pleading lack of direct culpability or relying on statutory schemes, the Delhi high court has held, while awarding ₹18.44 lakh as compensation to the father of a 19-year-old man who died by suicide in police custody in 2018.
<figure class="art
Justice Sachin Datta, in his verdict delivered on July 1, observed that a custodial death is not merely an individual tragedy but a “systemic concern” that strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law.
The court, in its ruling, held that once a person is deprived of liberty and placed in State custody, the authorities assume a “heightened duty of care” to safeguard their life and dignity.
The judge emphasised that any death in custody, whether resulting from violence, negligence, unexplained circumstances or even suicide, warrants judicial scrutiny, as it raises serious concerns about the protection of individual dignity and the credibility of the justice system.
Also Read |After WhatsApp, Centre’s notices to Telegram, Signal today over username feature
“It is well settled that when a person is in custody, he does not lose his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the State assumes an absolute and inalienable duty to protect his life and dignity. An unnatural death in custody, even if by suicide, is not a private act divorced from State responsibility, but reflects an omission of duty on the part of those charged with safekeeping. The State cannot escape responsibility by invoking statutory schemes or by contending absence of direct culpability,” the court said in its judgment.
It added, “Custodial death is not merely an individual tragedy but a matter of systemic concern, striking at the very foundation of the rule of law. When a person is deprived of liberty and placed in the custody of the State, the authorities assume a heightened duty of care. Any lapse resulting in death within custody, whether attributed to violence, negligence, unexplained circumstances or even suicide, demands judicial scrutiny, for it implicates both the dignity of the individual and the credibility of the justice system.”
Also Read | ‘Shows BJP’s double standards’: Congress questions PM Modi’s ‘silence’ over Ayodhya Ram Temple donation row
The ruling came on a petition filed by the victim’s father seeking compensation for the death of his 19-year-old son in custody at Karawal Nagar police station. He alleged that his son was arrested on January 15, 2018, from the Karkardooma Court premises in connection with a 2017 FIR and was subjected to physical assault, threats and extortion by the investigating sub-inspector, who allegedly demanded ₹20,000–30,000 for his release. The following morning, he said, he was informed that his son had allegedly died by suicide in police custody.
The petitioner had contended that his son’s death was due to the negligence of officials.
Opposing the plea, Delhi police’s counsel Premtosh Kumar Mishra argued that compensation is not an automatic consequence of every custodial death. He submitted that the post-mortem report attributed the death to “asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging” and recorded no external injuries, contending that the case did not warrant the grant of constitutional compensation.
Holding that the petitioner is entitled to monetary compensation, the court ordered, “The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner a compensation of ₹18,44,400 within a period of eight weeks from today.”
