The systemic pattern of state-sponsored violence is no longer unfolding in the dark in India. It has captured the urgent, unflinching gaze of the global community. From the halls of the United Nations, a clarion call for justice has been sounded, piercing through the veil of institutional secrecy. On February 25, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions issued a joint statement raising concerns with the government of India regarding systemic policing failures over reports of extra-judicial killings, custodial torture and deaths by law enforcement officials. They called upon the state to undertake meaningful reforms that align domestic practices with international human rights standards.This global attention reflects a visceral reality. Earlier this year, in a span of roughly two weeks, Tamil Nadu documented three cases of custodial torture leading to death: Selvakumar in Ariyalur, Punithan in Tambaram and Aakash in Madurai. Their deaths are not mere isolated incidents or ‘accidents’ of the system – they are the symptoms of a deeper, more malignant rot.In Ariyalur, Tambaram and Manamadurai, we find a lethal intersection of caste-based abuse, the defiant abandonment of human rights and the steady erosion of the fundamental right to life.Custodial torture: a continuing pattern of abusePunithan, also known as Kevilin, a 29-year-old man from Tambaram, was arrested on February 13 by the Shankar Nagar Police for failing to appear in court in a pending case. After his arrest, he was remanded by the Judicial Magistrate and taken to Puzhal Prison. However, during the prison admission process, he was found to be physically unfit for remand due to his injuries and was transferred to Stanley Hospital for treatment.Despite being medically unfit, Punithan was again remanded and returned to prison custody. His health continued to deteriorate and on February 18, he was readmitted to the hospital. The following day, February 19, he succumbed to his injuries. The investigation remains ongoing and the chargesheet is yet to be filed.In the same week, another case was reported, of Selvakumar, a 35-year-old daily wage labourer from the Adi Dravidar community, a Scheduled Caste, who was allegedly tortured by police at the T. Palur Police Station on February 28 after officers seized his phone near a TASMAC liquor shop and instructed him to collect it from the station.According to Selvakumar’s family’s complaint, police personnel assaulted him with lathis, kicked and stamped on him and used caste-based slurs while coercing him to sign a statement falsely admitting that he had been driving under the influence of alcohol. When he returned home later that evening, he showed visible injuries and told his family about the torture and humiliation he had endured.Large crowds like the one pictured have rallied against custodial deaths and torture over the last four years in Tamil Nadu. This is a gathering of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) supporters in Chennai during one such protest, held on July 13, 2025. Photo: PTI.Deeply distressed and in severe pain, Selvakumar later took his own life. A writ petition (Prakasam v. The Home Secretary and others), was filed in the Madras High Court seeking the CCTV footage of the police station and the post-mortem report, which was granted through an order dated March 12. The court also ordered the investigation to be conducted by the Ariyalur police as per the law and it is ongoing.Another case that hit the headlines recently was of Aakash Delison, a 26-year-old graduate from the Devendra Kula Vellalar community, a Scheduled Caste. He was arrested by the Manamadurai police in connection with an alleged group dispute case. He was allegedly taken by officers in plain clothes, separated from his friend, blindfolded and detained without his family being formally informed, in violation of established arrest procedures. He was later admitted to Government Rajaji Medical College Hospital in Madurai with severe injuries, including a broken leg and heavy bleeding.Also read: Custodial Deaths in India Are a Cold-Blooded Play of Power and ClassBefore his death on March 8, he reportedly told his mother that he had been brutally tortured by the police. The assault resulted in a fracture in one leg and heavy bleeding. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court noted during a hearing on March 11, “The mortuary label relating to the deceased [Aakash] indicates that the cause of death involved fat embolism, which is commonly associated with fractures of long bones.”According to the police, Aakash sustained the injuries after falling off Melapasalai bridge, where he was arrested. This is disputed by Aakash’s family, which says he was threatened to tell the hospital auhorities that he had fallen off the bridge rather than beaten.The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, on March 11, transferred the investigation to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department of Madurai City, where it is currently ongoing.Women at the frontlines of justiceIn a significant and rare intervention, Judicial Magistrate M. Afsal Fathima personally visited the hospital to record Aakash’s statement for the remand proceedings. Her report carefully documented his injuries, his account of custodial torture including allegations that the police blindfolded him, placed his leg between stones, covered it with a wet gunny bag and beat it with an iron rod.This prompt documentation turned into a dying declaration, enabling the registration of an FIR under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act within 4 days-an uncommon outcome in custodial death cases, where evidence collection and recognition of caste-based violence are often delayed.The judicial response that followed was equally notable. Justice Victoria Gowri of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court displayed notable sensitivity during the hearings. Following Aakash’s death, protests erupted in Manamadurai, with demonstrators blocking the Manamadurai–Rameswaram National Highway. When concerns were raised about the disruption to traffic, the judge remarked that such protests are often the only way for people to bring attention to the injustices occurring in the country.When the Additional Advocate General pointed out that the protesters were erecting temporary structures like a shamiyana and obstructing the free flow of traffic, the judge stood with the protesters, stating, “This happens when the prime minister or chief minister also passes. This is for the death of an Indian. Let the traffic be diverted.” In the interest of maintaining law and order, the court suggested that the protesters be given an alternative location. She urged that the state should not use force to remove the protesters from the national highway, physical or verbal.She expressed solidarity by stating, “I am with the protesters. My heart beats for the protesters. But they should also know that the law and order should not be affected. The state should not deal with the protesters with iron hands.”It is a tragic irony that Aakash died on International Women’s Day. Yet, in the struggle for justice that followed, women played crucial roles – from the Judicial Magistrate who meticulously documented his injuries to the high court judge who ensured that the voices of protesters were not silenced. Their actions serve as powerful reminders that accountability in cases of custodial violence depends not only on laws and institutions, but also on individuals within the system who are willing to uphold justice.The need for a robust legal framework in IndiaIndian constitutional jurisprudence has long recognised custodial torture as a grave violation under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court laid down binding guidelines to prevent custodial violence, including mandatory arrest procedures, documentation of injuries and prompt notification of family members. Yet, decades later, these guidelines are frequently treated as mere suggestions rather than mandates.International standards reinforce these obligations. The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death, 2016, requires that any death where state involvement is suspected must trigger a thorough, independent and transparent investigation. Similarly, the Istanbul Protocol, 2022, an internationally recognised framework for documenting torture, requires independent medical examinations, detailed documentation of physical and psychological trauma and official acknowledgement of allegations of abuse.When detainees are remanded despite visible injuries, or when medical findings are ignored or concealed, these obligations are fundamentally undermined.The persistence of the custodial deaths highlights a gaping hole in India’s legal arsenal: the absence of a comprehensive anti-torture law. India has repeatedly received recommendations to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) during the United Nations Universal Periodic Review, yet meaningful legislative progress has remained absent. India has signed the UNCAT but has not ratified it.Ratifying and implementing the protocol would require the state to criminalise torture explicitly, ensure independent investigations into custodial abuse and establish mechanisms for accountability and redress in any future anti-torture legislation. Further, its legislation should also reflect the rights and protections of survivors as recognised in the Charter of Rights of Victims and Survivors of Torture, introduced by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, on January 20 this year.India has several oversight bodies, including the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC), State Human Rights commissions and the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which are mandated to monitor and address such violations. Despite this, no suo moto cognisance has been taken up in the cases of Selvakumar, Punithan and Aakash, which represents a staggering failure of these institutions.The absence of action in the face of such blatant brutality raises a haunting question: If the guardians of human rights remain silent, who is left to watch the watchmen?ConclusionThe NHRC has reported 170 custodial deaths from January 1 to March 15, 2026, highlighting the increase in torture and violence by law enforcement officials across the country. In 2024-25, there were 140 total custodial death cases registered. Ensuring justice in these cases is not only about addressing individual violations, but also about confronting a systemic problem that demands urgent legal and institutional reform.Despite constitutional protections and oversight mechanisms, the absence of a comprehensive anti-torture law leaves significant gaps in prevention, investigation and accountability. Without robust legal frameworks and genuine accountability, custodial torture will continue to claim lives and erode the rule of law.The deaths of Selvakumar, Punithan and Aakash are not merely statistics; they are a reminder that the fight against custodial torture remains urgent and unfinished. These incidents must serve as a final turning point, fuelling a collective commitment to enact a dedicated anti-torture framework. It is time to codify accountability and honour the fundamental right to dignity, beginning with the ratification of UNCAT, then moving decisively towards formulating a robust anti-torture framework in India.Siddeeqa Iram is an advocate currently working as a Research Coordinator at People’s Watch.