Mumbai: During a cabinet meeting on April 15, Maharashtra chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis announced that custodial deaths in the state will henceforth be compensated. A fixed compensation will be paid to the next of kin of the deceased – Rs 5 lakhs for “unnatural deaths” in custody and Rs 1 lakh for suicides in custody. The Chief Minister’s Office stated that deaths resulting from accidents, medical negligence, assaults by jail officials, or fights among prisoners will be classified as “unnatural.”However, the cabinet decision fails to address critical issues of police and state accountability.Maharashtra has a grim record for custodial deaths. In March 2022, Union Minister of Home Affairs Nityanand Rai, responding to parliamentarians Pinaki Misra (Biju Janata Dal) and D. Ravikumar (Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi), disclosed that between 2016 and February 2022, 794 people died in police custody and 10,625 in jails nationwide. Maharashtra alone accounted for 100 police custody deaths and 774 jail deaths during this period.The role of ‘negligence’Fadnavis claimed the cabinet decision aligns with National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) guidelines, which call for compensation to families of those who die in custody. However, he overlooked a key NHRC directive: holding public servants accountable. The NHRC mandates that all custodial deaths – whether in police or judicial custody, natural or unnatural – be reported within 24 hours. If negligence is established, the NHRC recommends compensation and disciplinary action or prosecution against erring officials. Yet, Maharashtra’s policy remains silent on such measures.National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data reveals that over 70% of India’s prison population belongs to marginalised communities, with custodial death victims often from even more disadvantaged backgrounds. These families rarely have the resources to seek legal recourse or approach rights commissions. Custodial deaths follow a predictable pattern: the state has long evaded accountability by attributing deaths to “illness,” “accidents,” or “suicides,” never admitting to torture, police excesses, or negligence.In prisons, the NCRB classifies deaths as “natural” (due to illness) or “unnatural” (from assaults, torture, or suicides). However, “natural” deaths are far from natural, often resulting from inadequate medical care or failure to address urgent health emergencies. In most cases, the cause of death is not even verified.Also read: Remembering Stan Swamy, Whose Struggle Was Driven by Empathy and Love‘Evading liability’The NHRC guidelines use the term “government servant,” encompassing not only police and prison officials but also other critical decision-makers in prisoners’ lives, such as medical officers or home department officials. Yet, action against erring public servants is virtually non-existent.Murali Karnam, a prisoners’ rights scholar and professor at NALSAR University of Law, argues that the compensation policy implies that the state views custodial deaths as inevitable. “It’s as if the state is saying deaths will happen, and since they can’t be stopped, here’s compensation,” he says. In cases of natural disasters, where states lack control over the calamity, they offer compensation. However, custodial deaths occur under the state’s supervision. “The state cannot adopt a welfarist stance to evade criminal liability,” Karnam asserts.Maharashtra’s policy may provide financial relief, but without addressing systemic negligence and accountability, it risks normalising custodial deaths rather than preventing them. What is happening in Maharashtra is merely a reflection of how custodial violence is dealt with in the county. Although India signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 1997, it refused to ratified it, meaning that it is not legally binding on India to follow the international agreement. Parbani, Badlapur and othersIn December, when riots erupted in Parbhani over the desecration of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s statue, the police targeted protesters instead of the desecrator. Protesters were arrested en masse and brutally assaulted in custody. One young law student, Somnath Suryavanshi, was killed in custody. Despite clear evidence and a postmortem report confirming brutalisation, the state has not initiated action against the responsible police officers.Worse, Fadnavis, on the floor of the assembly, claimed the postmortem report was “wrongly interpreted” and defended the Parbhani police, stating, “The police did not act unlawfully,” despite video evidence of police brutality across the city. Nonetheless, he announced Rs 10 lakhs in compensation for the family, citing their “marginalised background” as the rationale.Also read | Parbhani Violence: Forensic Report Confirms Police Torture in Death of Law StudentIn September last year, a man accused of sexually assaulting two kindergarten students in Badlapur, on the outskirts of Mumbai, was killed in an “encounter.” The police attempted a cover-up until the Bombay high court intervened, and a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed to investigate. An FIR has since been filed.Suhas Chakma of the National Campaign Against Torture views the state’s compensation as “an admission of guilt”. “The very fact that the state is willing to pay indirectly acknowledges the wrong committed in their custody,” he says.A 2006 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) mandated a judicial magistrate inquiry for cases of death or rape in custody. Section 176(1A) of the CrPC has been replaced by Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. However, Chakma notes that states rarely comply with this legal requirement, and even when inquiries occur, they seldom lead to prosecution of the involved police officers.In 2019, Chakma filed a petition in the Supreme Court, presenting data from across states highlighting the flagrant violation of these rules. The case has not been heard since 2020.How states falterThe latest NCRB data, from 2022, exposes inconsistencies in conducting mandated judicial magistrate inquiries for custodial offences. Public outcry sometimes forces states to initiate such inquiries. In 2022, 41 deaths were reported in police custody nationwide. Judicial magistrate inquiries were conducted in 17 cases, while executive magistrates handled 15 others.States like Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Haryana, and Karnataka conducted no inquiries. In Maharashtra, where judicial inquiries are sometimes held, FIRs are rarely registered.Both Karnam and Chakma feel the judiciary is just as responsible. Karnam points to Supreme Court rulings, such as the 1983 Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar case, which laid emphasis on compensation. “It’s the Supreme Court’s doing,” he says. Chakma’s petition also highlights the NHRC’s directives on compensation. Since its inception in 1993, the NHRC has instructed states to compensate for custodial violence. However, while the NHRC implies police or prison staff responsibility when directing compensation, “this doesn’t translate to any action,” Chakma notes. Under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, every district has to have a designated Human Rights Court that exclusively handles cases of human rights violations, including the cases of custodial violence. But for over 30 years, these courts have only existed on paper.