The Jharkhand High Court has raised serious concerns over the National Human Rights Commission's (NHRC) interpretation of the legal provisions governing judicial inquiries into custodial deaths and custodial rapes. While hearing a public interest matter relating to custodial violence and accountability, the Court questioned whether the NHRC could issue guidelines that dilute or override the statutory mandate requiring judicial inquiries in such cases. Observing that custodial violence strikes at the core of constitutional values, the Court emphasized that the rule of law demands strict compliance with the legal safeguards enacted to protect individuals in State custody.
The matter came before the Division Bench during the hearing of issues concerning custodial deaths and the implementation of statutory requirements relating to judicial inquiries. The Court examined the legal framework governing custodial deaths and rapes, particularly the provision that mandates an independent judicial inquiry whenever a person dies, disappears, or a woman is subjected to rape while in police or judicial custody. The Bench expressed concern that despite the existence of a clear statutory mandate, executive authorities in several instances had relied upon NHRC guidelines to avoid conducting mandatory judicial inquiries.
The Court observed that the object of requiring judicial inquiries is to ensure transparency, accountability, and independence in investigating incidents involving custodial violence. Since such incidents occur when an individual is under the complete control of the State, an independent judicial inquiry serves as an important safeguard against abuse of power and helps maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. The Court noted that replacing judicial scrutiny with internal or executive inquiries would defeat the very purpose of the statutory protection.
During the proceedings, the High Court questioned the legal basis of the NHRC's interpretation, which was allegedly being relied upon by various State authorities to dispense with judicial inquiries in certain custodial death and custodial rape cases. The Bench observed that an administrative guideline cannot override or dilute an express statutory provision enacted by Parliament. Where the law mandates a judicial inquiry, executive instructions or administrative interpretations cannot substitute or modify that requirement.
The Court emphasized that the constitutional obligation of the State does not end with taking a person into custody. On the contrary, once an individual's liberty is curtailed by the State, the authorities assume an enhanced responsibility to ensure the safety, dignity, and fundamental rights of that person. Any custodial death or custodial violence therefore requires the highest level of scrutiny, independent investigation, and institutional accountability.
The Bench also highlighted the alarming consequences of failing to conduct judicial inquiries in custodial cases. It observed that independent judicial oversight helps preserve evidence, ensures impartial fact-finding, and strengthens public confidence in the administration of justice. If mandatory inquiries are not conducted, the possibility of suppression of material evidence, manipulation of records, or inadequate investigation cannot be ruled out, thereby undermining the rule of law.
The Court further observed that the statutory requirement for judicial inquiry is intended to function as an additional safeguard and does not replace or interfere with criminal investigation by the police. Instead, both processes operate independently to ensure that the circumstances leading to custodial deaths or custodial violence are examined comprehensively and objectively. This dual mechanism reflects the legislature's intention to provide greater protection in cases involving alleged abuse of State power.
Expressing concern over the reported non-compliance with the statutory mandate, the High Court sought explanations from the concerned authorities regarding the implementation of the legal provisions governing judicial inquiries. It also questioned whether reliance upon executive guidelines could justify departure from the express requirements of the law. The Court indicated that any administrative practice inconsistent with the statutory framework would require careful judicial scrutiny.
The proceedings also underline the broader constitutional principles governing custodial justice. The High Court reiterated that every individual, irrespective of the allegations against them, retains the right to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The use of State power must always remain subject to constitutional limitations, and any violation occurring in custody demands strict legal accountability.
The case assumes considerable significance in strengthening institutional safeguards against custodial violence across the country. By questioning the legality of executive interpretations that allegedly dilute mandatory judicial inquiries, the Jharkhand High Court has reaffirmed that statutory protections enacted to safeguard human rights cannot be curtailed through administrative directions. The outcome of the proceedings is expected to have far-reaching implications for the manner in which custodial deaths and custodial rape cases are investigated and monitored, while reinforcing the constitutional commitment to transparency, accountability, and the protection of fundamental rights.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.