Why Custodial Killings Are Endemic in India

The death in police custody of 27-year-old temple guard B. Ajith Kumar in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu on June 28 underscored yet again the normalization of police brutality and the routinization of torture in India.

Kumar was accused of stealing jewelry from a devotee’s car that he helped park. Police took him away for questioning. But he was not taken to a formal police station. He was driven across multiple remote locations where he was tortured and eventually died what forensic experts described as an “extremely painful death.”

A 38-second video shot on a mobile phone showed him being beaten brutally.

Kumar was declared dead the following day. His family alleges he was tortured while in police custody. The post-mortem report recorded 44 external injuries on his body; in at least 19 of these, the “depth [of the wound] extends up to [the] muscle.” Descriptions of the wounds indicate that Kumar was subjected to horrific violence.

Custodial deaths are pervasive in India. According to Ministry of Home Affairs data, 4,247 custodial deaths were reported in India between April 2020 and February 2022. This includes 255 deaths in police custody and 3,992 in judicial custody.

These figures are likely just the tip of the iceberg. In many incidents, people do not – or rather, they dare not – register a complaint with the police, as policemen are the perpetrators of the violence. These numbers also only refer to custodial deaths. There are countless instances of custodial torture which the victim survives.

Most victims of custodial violence are from poor and marginalized communities. Since India’s criminal justice system almost always works against them, victims or their families often see no point in turning to the police or courts for justice. Hence, these incidents are rarely reported.

People have been tortured to death for breaking minor rules or committing the smallest of crimes. In June 2020, P. Jeyaraj, 58, and his son Bennix, 38, were detained and reportedly thrashed for hours – the violence was perverted – for keeping their store open past permitted hours during the COVID-19 lockdown in Tamil Nadu. Two days later, they died of alleged police brutality.

In Kumar’s case, he may not have even committed a crime. Rights activists have described the complaint that led to his questioning as “flimsy.” It appears that in extreme pain due to the torture and under pressure, Kumar reportedly admitted that he knew where the gold was hidden. When the police took him to the spot, he broke down and confessed that he had lied about committing the crime, just to escape the beatings.

Yet police did not think twice before beating Kumar to death.

As disturbing as the pervasiveness of custodial killings and the barbaric violence unleashed is,  the failure of the system to provide any degree of accountability is horrendous.

Consider this: not a single policeman was convicted for the 1,107 deaths in police custody in the 2011-2022 period, according to National Crime Records Bureau data.

People’s Watch, a human rights NGO based in Madurai in Tamil Nadu, described custodial torture as “an entrenched and often routine law enforcement strategy” in India.

Why are policemen so willing to wield their lathis (bamboo sticks) on people they take into custody? Most do not think it is wrong. Many justify the use of violence on those in their custody as necessary to extract confessions, to speed up investigations, to elicit information from “hardened criminals,” and to discipline habitual offenders.

According to the “Status of Policing in India Report 2025: Police Torture and (Un)Accountability” report, 30 percent of police personnel surveyed for the study nationwide justify the use of “third-degree methods” against the accused in serious criminal cases. Sixty-three percent of policemen in Gujarat expressed “high support” for torture as “necessary and acceptable to gain information,” while in Tamil Nadu, 56 percent were highly supportive and 35 percent moderately supportive of such methods.

As the Asian Center for Human Rights observed, “torture remains endemic, institutionalized, and central to the administration of justice and counter terrorism measures” in India.

Although India signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) in 1997, it is yet to ratify the treaty. Indian law mandates the enactment of a domestic law before ratification of an international treaty. Although there are some safeguards against torture, to date India remains without a domestic law on torture, indicating how reluctant India’s political class is to enact comprehensive legislation to stop torture.

In Kumar’s case, the government has swung into action given that there is a video that reveals what was done to him. The issue has sparked considerable outrage.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. K. Stalin responded quickly. The five constables allegedly involved in Kumar’s death were arrested. Kumar’s brother was given a job and his family some land. These are welcome steps, but they are at best gestures aimed at damage control, not justice.

Will Kumar’s death lead to arrests and convictions?

Radical reforms that will halt the use of torture on detainees for whatever reason are needed. Not just those who wielded their lathis so unconscionably but also their bosses who allow, perhaps even encourage them, should be tried, convicted and punished, too. Importantly, there is a need for sensitization of the police on the issue of torture, effective interrogation methods, and humane treatment of detainees.