RANCHI: In a landmark judgement on custodial deaths and constitutional accountability, the Jharkhand High Court on Thursday ordered fresh judicial inquiries into 262 custodial death cases.
The court observed that investigations conducted by Executive Magistrates instead of Judicial Magistrates violated the mandatory provisions under Section 176(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 196(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The direction was passed by a Division Bench of Chief Justice MS Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar while disposing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Md Mumtaz Ansari over alleged lapses in compliance with custodial death investigation procedures across Jharkhand.
Shocked by over 427 custodial deaths, the court flagged massive violations of mandatory judicial inquiries.
“On a perusal of this data, this Court is shocked beyond words. While the respondents claim that magisterial inquiries were conducted in all 427 cases, their own figures reveal either a fundamental misunderstanding or a total disregard for the law. This Court fails to comprehend how the respondents can, under oath, state that they have complied with the mandates of Section 176 of the CrPC or Section 196 of the BNSS in letter and spirit,” stated the court in its order.
According to the court, the figure, or at least the disclosed figure of 427 custodial deaths between 2018 and 2016, is alarming.
"But even more alarming is the utter disregard for legal procedures when addressing such issues of custodial deaths," it said.
The court observed that the breaches are serious, if unchecked, will increase custodial unnatural deaths, embolden the perpetrators, and promote lawlessness.
“The right to life protected by our Constitution also extends to those in the custody of State Authorities, and those in Authority cannot, therefore, trample upon this right by disregarding, with impunity, the legal and Constitutional safeguards,” stated the court order.
"The occurrence of a fatality within the coercive control of the State, legally categorised as a ‘custodial death’, represents a profound failure of the constitutional machinery," it added.
The court further observed, “In a civilised society governed by the Rule of Law, custodial violence is an affront to the very essence of justice. The social contract between the State and its citizens is fundamentally predicated on the dual pillars of dignity and security. Any breach of this trust while a person is in the State's care strikes at the heart of our democratic values”.
Notably, according to an affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary of the Department of Home, Prisons and Disaster Management, 437 deaths occurred in judicial custody since 2018.
Earlier, the State had opposed the petition and termed it “frivolous” and “misconceived,” a stand strongly criticised by the High Court in the judgment.
