The Scope, Methodology, and Findings
Its Scope, Methodology and Findings
Radhika Jha*
The Status of Policing in India Report 2025 examines the issue of police torture and violence through empirical data. While the true extent of police torture in India remains difficult to quantify, this report offers a comprehensive overview of how the police themselves perceive and report the use of torture, in ways that sidestep established legal protocols.
The study explores police attitudes towards torture and the extent to which its use has become normalised. These perspectives are contrasted with those of key institutional actors meant to serve as safeguards against police torture and excesses—namely, lawyers, judges, and doctors. The report also analyses official data on custodial torture and police excesses to identify broader patterns in the reporting and disposal of such cases.
The findings reveal a troubling trend of significant sections of the police justifying the use of torture, viewing it as acceptable in all cases, including minor offences. This attitude is accompanied by a disregard for legal procedures and the rule of law, with police often overstepping their role to act as not just the investigator, but also the judge and the executioner.
There is an urgent need for broad public debate on torture, to push against the prevailing unwillingness to better understand, engage with, and advocate against torture.
In this article, we use extracts from Chapter 9 of SPIR 2025 to give a snapshot of the major findings from this report.
Methodology
We used mixed methodological tools in this study. The study included a survey of 8,276 police personnel of all ranks across 82 locations from 16 states and one UT (Delhi). These states were pre-decided based on their population size as per 2011 census of India to ensure regional representation across all parts of the country. The sample ensured proportionate representation of police officers across ranks, gender, caste and religions.
In addition to this, we conducted in-depth interviews with other accountability actors—lawyers, judges and doctors—to gauge their perceptions and experiences with cases of police torture. We interviewed a total of 28 such actors, comprising seven doctors, 12 lawyers (including one Public Prosecutor), and nine judges. The interviews were coded and analysed to identify patterns and interviewee’s observations.
Lastly, the study also examined government reports, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) data, National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) statistics, and utilised the Right to Information (RTI) to obtain crucial data from the concerned departments. The data points for this analysis were taken from NCRB, NHRC, and a civil society organisation, National Campaign Against Torture (NCAT).
Some of the broader findings of this study are given in the following sections.
Disregard for Rule of Law
At the outset, the survey data reveals that a significant proportion of the police respondents prefer extrajudicial measures over due process and systemic checks. This mindset is reflected in their attitudes towards the efficiency of the criminal justice system, with 28 percent believing it is too weak and slow to address crimes. A notable proportion of the respondents said that police should be allowed to arrest and detain suspected criminals without any judicial oversight.
A concerningly high proportion of police personnel exhibit a clear preference for summary justice imparted by the police, both in minor as well as serious offences. For instance, nearly two out of five police personnel (38%) believe that minor punishments should be handed out by the police instead of going through a legal trial. On the other hand, for more serious offences, more than one in five police personnel go so far as to justify police killings, with 22 percent agreeing with the statement that for the greater good of the society, killing dangerous criminals is sometimes better than giving them a legal trial.
Compliance with Arrest Procedures
There are several procedural safeguards which the police are required to comply with in all cases of arrests. Failure to do so in any case will render the arrests illegal. Yet, we found that non-compliance with these provisions was significant. The police reported “always” identifying themselves with a visible name tag at the time of arrest, and informing the arrested person of their right to contact a lawyer, in less than 70 percent of cases. Worryingly, police reported “rarely or never completing” an inspection memo and an arrest memo with all the required signatures in up to nine and ten percent cases respectively. Overall, just 41 percent police personnel said that arrest procedures are always complied with, while 35 percent said that they are sometimes complied with. As many as one in four police personnel (24%) said that these procedures are rarely or never complied with. Further, only 62 percent police personnel said that arrested persons are “always” released on bail immediately, at the police station, in bailable offences. Anyone arrested for a bailable offence who is kept in police custody is being illegally detained.
The surveyed personnel also exhibit strong resistance to institutional checks that are in place to check against arbitrary police actions and excesses. Only 56 percent of the police personnel believe that it is always feasible to produce an arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, when this is a constitutional mandate.
The right of arrested persons to legal counsel is also undermined by the police, with 20 percent believing that an arrested person should never be allowed to talk to a lawyer in private, and as many as 30 percent saying that a lawyer should never be allowed to be present during interrogation, running completely contrary to Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 38 of BNSS, 2023.
Justification for Torture
The police in India have a strong reliance on a culture of fear and the
Nearly two out of five police personnel (38%) believe that minor punishments should be handed out by the police instead of going through a legal trial.
use of “tough methods”, as is emerging from the survey data findings. More than half of the interviewed police personnel feel that it is important for the police to use “tough methods” to create fear among the public, with 20 percent strongly agreeing, and 35 percent saying that it is somewhat important
As many as 30 percent police respondents justify the use of thirddegree methods towards accused in serious criminal cases. A smaller proportion of nine percent said that it is justified while investigating petty offences like theft, etc. Further, twenty percent strongly agree that torture is necessary and acceptable to gain information in theft cases. This figure goes up to 42 percent when it comes to the investigation of crimes against national security. Overall, as many as 30 percent police personnel have a high propensity to justify torture, while another 32 percent have a moderate tendency to justify it.
As many as 30 percent police respondents justify the use of third-degree methods towards accused in serious criminal cases. A smaller proportion of nine percent said that it is justified while investigating petty offences like theft, etc.
Another disconcerting trend is police’s willingness to use violent techniques against non-accused persons such as witnesses, or family members of arrested persons. Eleven percent of police personnel feel that hitting or slapping family members of an absconding suspect is absolutely justified, while another 30 percent feel that it is somewhat justified. Nine percent of police personnel justify the use of thirddegree methods against “uncooperative witnesses”.
79 percent police personnel felt that training on human rights is very important and the same proportion also said that training on evidencebased interrogation techniques is very important.
Police Training in Human Rights
Two positive trends stand out among the police responses. One, there was overwhelming agreement on the need for more training on various aspects of policing that are aimed at limiting, if not completely abolishing, the use of torture. 79 percent police personnel felt that training on human rights is very important and the same proportion also said that training on evidence-based interrogation techniques is very important. A slightly lesser but significant majority of 71 percent also said that training on prevention of torture is very important.
Secondly, there is similarly high support for the mandatory reporting of torture by police witnesses. Given that police torture is most often witnessed by other police officers, 39 percent respondents said that it should always be mandatory for police witnesses to report torture, while another 41 percent said that it should sometimes be mandatory. Four out of five police personnel also said that if they have legal protection, junior police officers would feel comfortable complaining against their seniors for the use of violence—44 percent said always, and 36 percent said sometimes.
An analysis of the NCRB data in fact shows that 96 percent of deaths in police custody in Gujarat from 2018-22 took place before the arrested person was put on remand, that is, within 24 hours. At the national level, the corresponding figure in 2022 was 54.7 percent.
State-Level Variations
There is significant variation across states in the responses of the police officers, particularly on the questions of compliance with legal procedures and their views on the use of torture. Two states that stand out on polar extremes are Gujarat, where the police are significantly more likely to justify torture and other violent techniques, and on the other end is Kerala, where the police report both better compliance with legal procedures, as well as much lower inclination to justify torture.
For instance, 63 percent of the police personnel from Gujarat said that torture is necessary and acceptable to gain information across various categories of crimes, against just three percent in Kerala. Again, in the overall propensity to justify torture, nearly half of the police personnel from Gujarat justify it (49%), while just one percent of the police personnel from Kerala justify torture. In Gujarat, the police also exhibit a high tolerance for the public taking the law into their own hands and resorting to violence, with 57 percent of respondents from Gujarat saying that mob violence is justified to a great extent, against zero respondents from Kerala. On the other hand, in Kerala, 91 percent of police personnel felt that mob violence is not at all justified.
The problematic opinions emerging from Gujarat are in line with official figures on custodial deaths and custodial violence, which, although highly likely to be under-reported, depict larger trends when seen across years and states. According to both NHRC as well as NCRB data, Gujarat reported the highest number of deaths in police custody in 2020, which is also reflected in the compilation of cases by the National Campaign Against Torture (NCAT) in the same year. An analysis of the NCRB data in fact shows that 96 percent of deaths in police custody in Gujarat from 2018-22 took place before the arrested person was put on remand, that is, within 24 hours. At the national level, the corresponding figure in 2022 was 54.7 percent.
Disaggregation of Responses by Ranks
A concerning trend emerging from a cumulative look at the findings of this report is the support for the use of torture and the disregard for established procedures amongst the highest echelons of the police - the IPS officers.
When asked about the feasibility of complying with arrest procedures, the IPS were the least likely to say that it is always feasible or practical to produce an arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. On the overall adherence with arrest procedures, IPS officers were the least likely to say that they are “always” complied with, while upper subordinate officers, i.e. personnel from the ranks of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) to DySP (Deputy Supreintendent of Police), were the most likely to say so.
Similarly, when it comes to the use of third-degree methods, as understood by the respondents, IPS officers were the most likely to justify it against arrested persons as well as the most likely to justify it against “uncooperative witnesses” (28% IPS officers, compared to 8% upper subordinate officers). On propensities to justify torture, ranks converged largely in consensus - IPS officers showed the highest propensity to justify torture (34%), followed by constabulary (32%), and 26 percent of personnel of the upper subordinate rank with a high propensity to justify torture.
Another trend emerging is that those police officers who are most frequently directly involved in conducting arrests, investigating cases, or interrogating suspects are also the ones who are most likely to discount legal safeguards and justify the use of torture. Police officers who frequently conduct interrogations are five times more likely to say that IOs frequently use third-degree methods many times (15%), compared to those who never conduct interrogations (3%). Those who frequently conduct interrogations also have the highest propensity to justify the use of torture (37% have a high propensity, against 16 percent among those who never conduct interrogations).
NEXT »
