Nagercoil: A month ago, on June 17, Tamil Nadu witnessed the cremation of 26-year-old Akash Delison, who succumbed to custodial torture by the Manamadurai police. The state proceeded with the cremation despite the family’s refusal to receive his body for over 100 days, demanding accountability for his death.Exactly a month later, Sabari Varman’s family found itself in the same horror. Sabari, 35, from Ethankadu lost his life in judicial custody with grave injuries. For over four days after his death, his family too protested without receiving his body, urging justice be served before they performed his final rites.They ultimately cremated him on Friday and accepted the government’s compensation, but questions surrounding exactly what happened to Sabari and the state’s role in preventing such incidents continue to linger.According to a report published by the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), the National Human Rights Commission recorded 2,739 custodial deaths in India in 2024, following nearly 2,400 deaths in 2023. The report also states that 1,995 prisoners died in judicial custody in 2022, including 159 classified as unnatural deaths.Mirroring this broader pattern, Sabari’s death echoes a familiar pattern of constitutional rights violations and breach of the ‘Santhosh guidelines’ on the investigation of custodial deaths, highlighting the continued absence of long-promised custodial reform.Family driven to agitate after being denied access to bodyIn Tamil Nadu’s Kanyakumari district, three women were shattered after hearing on July 13 that their only son, brother and partner, S. Sabari Varman, who had a physical disability (his right limb is considerably shorter than his left), had died in custody. Sabari ran a small shop in the village and is survived by his ailing parents, his wife and their four-year-old son.On reaching the hospital that day after being told Sabari had fallen sick in jail, the family was devastated to learn that he had died and that his body lay unclaimed in the mortuary.“We waited for several hours to see his body, but we were repeatedly ignored and denied access during that time. We were told that the key to the mortuary had been misplaced,” says advocate Ershad Ahmed, who accompanied Sabari’s family.The family members, along with relatives, staged a protest in front of the mortuary demanding to see Sabari’s body, doubting – correctly, as it later turned out – custodial torture.The small grocery shop owned by S. Sabari Varman, behind which he lived in Ethankadu, Kanniyakumari, Photo: Akshara Sanal.Order of events leading to Sabari’s death in custodyOn July 9, the South Thamarikulam police arrested Sabari for allegedly possessing under 200 grams of gutka, a banned tobacco product. His mobile phone and two-wheeler were confiscated. After being declared medically fit, he was produced before a magistrate and remanded to judicial custody. He was lodged at the Nagercoil sub-jail the same day.On July 10, his wife and his sister, along with their advocate, visited Sabari at the Nagercoil sub-jail. Advocate Siddharth assured him he would get him out on bail in a couple of days. His family claims Sabari seemed to be in good health during the visit.On July 11 and 12, prison department official Yogeshwaran visited Sabari’s home and handed over a waist cord on one day and an ear stud on the other to his family members. Ahmed notes this violates the Prisons Act that requires a prisoner’s personal items to be in the jailer’s custody unless a court orders otherwise.On Monday, July 13, around 6:30 am, Sabari’s wife said she was informed by a prison official that he was sick and had been admitted to the Kanniyakumari Government Medical College Hospital (KKGMCH) at Asaripallam.On hearing the news, the family rushed to the hospital. According to his wife, they received another call an hour later informing them that Sabari had died of a heart attack.Reports say that on July 13, the police found Sabari lying unconscious inside his cell early in the morning and rushed him to the KKGMCH, where doctors declared him dead on arrival around 6:05 am.Aftermath of the incident and the family’s reactionKanniyakumari superintendent of police (SP) R. Stalin met the protesting family members on July 13 and allowed them to see the body.“I saw the injuries on his face and shoulder. His face was dark; only his face was shown,” says Sabari’s wife. The family further requested to see the entire body without any cloth covering it.The family filed a complaint on the same day at the Nesamony Nagar police station, alleging that the police had threatened Sabari on July 9, saying they would lodge a case against him if he failed to pay a bribe of Rs 25,000 and demanded around ten packets of cigarettes.A birthday poster for Sabari Varman’s child posted on the wall outside his house, Photo: Akshara Sanal.The complaint also stated that the family were not allowed to see his body for nearly three and a half hours after arriving at the hospital and that the SP showed them his face, not his full body, says Ahmed.Judicial magistrate R. Sathyamoorthy later allowed the family to see the front of his body. “Seeing my husband’s body shattered me completely. I saw multiple injuries, including a blood clot in his disabled right wrist, an injury on his shoulder and a severe injury in his left elbow. Most importantly, an injury was there on his private part,” says his wife.On Tuesday, July 14, a postmortem was conducted at KKGMCH. The report, which The Wire has seen, revealed that there were 19 injuries on Sabari’s body, including a fracture in the right hand, bruises on the head, neck and left arm, along with scrape injuries on the chest and lower right leg. Some of his injuries, The News Minute writes, reportedly indicate he was tied up.Human rights organisation People’s Watch analysed the report and deemed the case to be one of custodial torture.Breach of rights and lawAfter People’s Watch intervened, both Sabari’s family and their advocates became aware of the Santhosh guidelines – a set of directions issued by the Madras high court in Santhosh v. State of Tamil Nadu (W.P. (MD) No. 12608 of 2020). The court laid down detailed rules to improve transparency and accountability in the investigation of custodial deaths.According to People’s Watch and the advocates representing Sabari’s family, both the police and judicial departments committed procedural breaches of the following guidelines:The back of the victim’s body was not shown to the family before the postmortem.The family and their representatives were not allowed to take a video or photographs of the body before the postmortem.The family was denied access to the body for nearly three and a half hours and had to stage a protest in front of the mortuary before being permitted to see it. They were not informed of their right to see the body and had to insist on it themselves.People’s Watch further observed that, with relation to the Santhosh guidelines,The postmortem report had to be issued by the dean of KKGMCH, where the procedure was conducted, but was instead handed over by the judicial magistrate, and the video was not provided along with the postmortem report.The cause of death and time of death were not mentioned in the postmortem report.Before the confirmation by People’s Watch, the judicial magistrate had already obtained signatures from the victim’s family members on the postmortem report.“We trusted the judicial magistrate; we were not aware of the missing cause and time of death on the post-mortem report. Now we are not sure whether Sabari died on Monday, July 13, or the day before because there is no indication of custodial torture in the post-mortem report,” says his sister.The family then demanded that video footage from the postmortem be handed over to them and urged the government to order a re-postmortem, as they were not satisfied with the initial findings. They received footage of Sabari’s postmortem on Thursday, July 16.4-year-old child of the custodial death victim colouring in his book as leaders of various organisations visited his family, Photo: Akshara Sanal.What action has been taken so far?According to reports, after the postmortem findings on Tuesday, July 14, and after verifying the CCTV footage, the police arrested three prison staff members. Chief warden Thirumalai Nambi Suresh (50) and wardens Sivakumar (48) and Jegan (46) of the Nagercoil Sub Jail were placed under suspension.On Wednesday, July 15, following the arrest of the three prison staff members, police further arrested eight prison inmates allegedly involved in an attack on Sabari inside his cell. According to reports, the arrested prisoners are Vishnu (21), Sarathi (19), Jegan (40), Sarath (20), Veriyaperumal (36), Sethuram (30), Ajith (29) and Aravind (27).The Times of India and the Indian Express also cited a senior police officer as claiming that Sabari behaved ‘abnormally’ inside judicial custody, after which a prison official allegedly beat Sabari in a bid to restrain him while two others were arrested for allegedly concealing evidence.The findings in Sabari’s postmortem report as well as the eight inmates’ arrests suggest that there was more to Sabari’s death than what the police reportedly let on initially, i.e. that he ‘fell sick’ and died of a heart attack, per his wife.The Wire reached out to Kanniyakumari SP Stalin but has not yet received a response. Attempts to contact the Nesamony Nagar police using the landline number listed on the Tamil Nadu government’s website failed. Upon attempting to reach the KKGMCH’s dean twice on Monday, this reporter was informed that they are in a meeting and told to call again.Case points to need for better oversight of prisons, ensuring rights of disabled personsHenri Tiphagne, founder of the Madurai-based People’s Watch, asks if Sabari’s remand was necessary in the first place as he was arrested for an offence carrying a maximum punishment of less than seven years in prison. “The magistrate could have considered an alternative to remanding him to judicial custody,” he said. “If the remand had been avoided, the man would not have gone into custody, and all the other things would not have happened.”Henri also raised concerns regarding Sabari’s post-mortem, alleging there was an attempt to hurriedly conduct the procedure on the night of July 13 – the procedure was ultimately conducted only on the next day, July 14, by the forensic experts.Sabari’s family members along with villagers protest on the Kanniyakumari roadway, demanding justice for his custodial death, on July 15, 2026, Photo: Akshara Sanal.He also noted that the family was not provided with video footage of the post-mortem on July 14 itself, something that would have allowed them and their representatives to verify the details stated in the autopsy report and make an informed decision about receiving Sabari’s body. However, Henri described the immediate arrest of three prison officials as a hopeful step towards accountability.Henri stated that since Sabari died in judicial custody, an examination must be done in the wider context of prison administration and oversight. He pointed to a 2023 Madras high court order that directed the Tamil Nadu government to strengthen prison oversight, including by appointing non-official visitors and constituting a board of visitors in prisons. He also alleged that prisons in Tamil Nadu currently lack such mechanisms, leaving no independent external oversight within the prison system.Henri also referred to the Supreme court’s 2025 judgment in L. Muruganantham v. The state of Tamil Nadu, which requires custodial institutions like prisons to be more accessible and inclusive for persons with disabilities. It also mandates earlier identification of disability, appropriate healthcare and assistive devices, sensitisation of prison staff on disability rights, and safeguarding the dignity and rights of prisoners with disabilities.Henri said that the implementation of these measures along with the Santhosh guidelines is essential to strengthen accountability and prevent such custodial deaths. He also called for a special investigation team to probe Sabari’s death under appropriate oversight.Silence of the ruling governmentTwo days after Sabari died, his family members, relatives and residents of Ethankadu on July 15 expressed deep displeasure at the fact that no senior officials from the government had addressed his custodial death. “It has been three days since my brother died. Neither the honourable chief minister of Tamil Nadu nor any minister of the state had approached us or issued any official statement regarding the custodial death,” said his sister.Her remarks came against the background of chief minister Vijay meeting the families of 18 custodial death victims last July and leading a protest in Chennai demanding justice. During the protest, he had slammed the then-ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government over custodial deaths and demanded the release of a white paper detailing custodial deaths in Tamil Nadu.Thoothukudi MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi visiting the victim’s family at their home in Ethankadu, Kanniyakumari to offer her condolences, Photo: Akshara Sanal.Leaders from various political parties, including the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), Bharatiya Janata Party, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Naam Tamilar Katchi and DMK visited Sabari’s family. The politicians urged the case to be shifted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), as the family finds the current investigation unsatisfactory and has pointed to the serious lapses in prison administration that have apparently taken place.That evening, Sabari’s mother, his sister and his wife, along with their four-year-old son, relatives and local residents protested by blocking roads at the Ethankadu junction in Kanniyakumari. They raised slogans demanding a CBI probe, a re-postmortem and compensation.“We are being silenced; the state is ignoring the custodial death of my beloved son, who was a physically disabled person. He couldn’t even defend himself if anyone physically assaulted him; it would have caused my son immense pain, and he would have begged the officials to leave him alone. I lost my child,” said Sabari’s mother, in tears, during the protest. “We need justice for his death.”As per reports, on the night of July 15, the district collector, the SP and the revenue divisional officer visited Sabari’s family and assured them that all their demands will be fulfilled, including a permanent government job, education for his child and housing for the family. But Sabari’s family refused to accept the assistance and demanded accountability.They also rejected the government’s offer of assistance when ministers S. Rajesh Kumar and A. Srinath along with the collector and SP visited them on the 16th, resolving to receive his body only after confirming the authenticity of his post-mortem report.Later, after they received footage from the post-mortem and People’s Watch verified the details in the report, Sabari’s family agreed to receive his corpse. After a multi-day protest, his body was brought to Ethankadu on July 17 and cremated on the same day.Officials from the police department at the site of protest on the Kanniyakumari highway to control the crowd on July 15, 2026. Photo: Akshara Sanal.Senior revenue officials visited Sabari’s family’s residence and handed over financial assistance of Rs 10 lakh, a temporary government job to his wife and a patta for 1.75 cents (0.0175 acres) of land.However, the TVK government has not issued a public statement on Sabari’s death.AIADMK general secretary and former Tamil Nadu chief minister E. Palaniswami criticised the state’s offer to compensate Sabari’s family as inadequate. “It is heartbreaking that a chief minister, within 60 days of coming to power, has come up with the idea of pouring money onto innocent and priceless lives and silencing them by asking ‘O life, what is your price?’,” he said.The government’s compensation package may offer the family some financial relief, but for as long as custodial violence is treated as an incident to be compensated after the fact – rather than a failure to be prevented – such tragedies are likely to recur. The focus must shift from ex gratia payments to – as Henri points out – institutional reforms, ensuring accountability for errant officials, strengthening judicial oversight, enforcing custodial safeguards and implementing preventive measures that make torture and custodial deaths far less likely.Akshara Sanal is an independent journalist.