A recently released report, the Status of Policing in India Report 2025: Police Torture and (Un)Accountability, paints a concerning picture of the prevalence of police torture and the systemic challenges hindering accountability within the Indian police.
The report, a collaborative effort by Common Cause and Lokniti-Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), is based on a survey of 8,276 police personnel across 17 states and a Union Territory, along with in-depth interviews with judges, lawyers, and doctors.
The report highlights a significant disregard for the rule of law among a notable section of the police. Nearly one-third (28%) of police personnel believe the criminal justice system is too weak and slow, with a preference for extrajudicial measures over due process. Alarmingly, almost two out of five (38%) feel that for minor offences, police should give minor punishment instead of following legal trials.
The study also reveals a disturbing acceptance of violence. Twenty-two percent of police personnel fully agree that it is alright for the police to be violent towards suspects of serious offences for the greater good of society, with an additional 41 percent somewhat agreeing. Furthermore, 30 percent of police personnel justify the use of third-degree methods against accused individuals in serious criminal cases. This justification often stems from a belief in dispensing “justice” directly and a perception of the public expecting aggressive law enforcement.
The report uncovers significant discrepancies and underreporting in official data concerning custodial deaths. In 2020 alone, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reported 76 custodial deaths, while the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) recorded 90, and the National Campaign Against Torture (NCAT), a civil society organization, documented 111 cases. Notably, while NCAT data suggests that nearly half (46%) of custodial deaths in 2020 were allegedly due to torture, the NCRB attributed only one death to injuries sustained during police custody due to physical assault in the same year. The report emphasizes the lack of a reliable and consistent official source on custodial deaths.
Islamophobia in the police
It also reveals concerning indicators of Islamophobia within the police. The report highlights that significant proportions of police personnel hold biased perceptions against Muslims, with a considerable number believing that Muslims are “naturally prone towards committing crimes”.
According to the police survey, Hindu police personnel are most likely to believe that Muslims are “naturally inclined towards committing crimes”, while Sikh police personnel are least likely to hold this view. This belief is particularly prevalent among police personnel in states such as Delhi, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Gujarat, and Jharkhand.
In Delhi, police personnel are most likely to believe that Muslims are naturally prone to committing crimes to a “great extent”.
The report also notes that Muslims are identified as one of the marginalized communities that are common targets of torture. Academic scholarship cited in the report suggests that torture tactics employed by the police against Muslim men suspected of terrorism deliberately target their religious identity and masculinity to humiliate the entire community.
Police respondents in states with harsh cow slaughter laws, such as Gujarat, Odisha, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra, showed high support for mob punishment in such cases.
Furthermore, despite a significant proportion of police personnel believing that Muslims are predisposed to crime, a considerable percentage also perceive that Muslims are likely to get justice to a “great extent”. However, the report cautions that these are the police’s perceptions, which may be marred by pre-existing biases and could be contrary to the lived realities of Muslims.
Independent analysis of prison statistics indicates the over-incarceration of Muslims, suggesting potential biases within the criminal justice system.
Call for reforms
The findings indicate a strong resistance to upholding systemic safeguards and restricting police powers. A majority of police respondents view public complaints against the police as “false and frivolous,” signaling a reluctance towards accountability. While a majority of respondents favor mandatory reporting of custodial torture by witnessing police officials, IPS officers are the least likely to agree with this. Furthermore, police respondents largely rejected judicial oversight regarding arrests, detention, and custodial deaths, revealing a preference for unchecked powers.
Perspectives from lawyers, judges, and doctors interviewed for the report corroborate the concerns about torture and the challenges in ensuring accountability. Interviewees highlighted issues such as manipulated postmortem reports, collusion between police and some defense lawyers, and the lack of support for doctors who report signs of torture.
The report concludes with a strong call for strengthening institutional safeguards and fostering a greater commitment to the rule of law within the police force. It recommends more active engagement and interaction between judicial magistrates and arrested persons, along with ensuring medical examinations during custody. The report also underscores the urgent need for more comprehensive and consistent data collection on police torture and custodial violence to better understand the problem and inform policy interventions.
A significant majority of police personnel surveyed expressed the need for more training on human rights, evidence-based interrogation techniques, and the prevention of torture.
Accountability, paints a concerning picture of the prevalence of police torture and the systemic challenges hindering accountability within the Indian police.){kind=link}