16 May 2026 Legal Updates

‘Shocked Beyond Words’: Jharkhand High Court Flags 427 Custodial Deaths, Says Judicial Inquiry Mandatory

The Jharkhand High Court held that inquiries into custodial deaths, disappearances and custodial rape must mandatorily be conducted by Judicial Magistrates, observing that Executive Magistrate inquiries violate statutory safeguards and Article 21 protections.

Case Details

(a) Case Title:

• Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

(b) Court:

• Jharkhand High Court

(c) Bench:

• Chief Justice M.S. Sonak, Justice Rajesh Shankar

(d) Relevant Provisions:

• Section 176(1-A), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Section 196(2), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
• Article 21 of the Constitution

Facts of the Case

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before the Jharkhand High Court seeking directions that every case involving: custodial death, custodial disappearance, or custodial rape must compulsorily undergo judicial inquiry.

The petitioner stated that the PIL represented:

• victims of custodial violence,
• families of deceased persons,
• and marginalized sections of society who often lack financial resources and legal awareness to challenge State machinery.

The petitioner relied upon official data disclosed by the Government of Jharkhand before the State Legislative Assembly. The data showed that: 427 custodial deaths had occurred since 2018.

The petitioner argued that despite the mandatory legal requirement under Section 176(1-A) CrPC, the State was routinely appointing Executive Magistrates instead of Judicial Magistrates to conduct inquiries.

After examining the records, the High Court expressed extreme shock at the systemic violation of law and constitutional safeguards.

Issues Raised

• Whether inquiries into custodial deaths can be conducted by Executive Magistrates instead of Judicial Magistrates?
• Whether Section 176(1-A) CrPC / Section 196(2) BNSS creates a mandatory obligation for judicial inquiry?
• Whether failure to conduct judicial inquiries violates Article 21 of the Constitution?
• Whether custodial violence and improper inquiries undermine Rule of Law and constitutional governance?

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner argued:

• Judicial Inquiry Is Mandatory: Section 176(1-A) CrPC clearly mandates inquiry by Judicial Magistrates.
• Executive Magistrate Inquiry Is Illegal: Executive inquiries compromise independence and fairness.
• State Was Violating Constitutional Safeguards: Failure to conduct judicial inquiries violates: Article 21, Rule of Law, procedural fairness.
• Custodial Violence Affects Vulnerable Sections: Poor and marginalized persons suffer the most from custodial abuse.
• State Showing Systemic Non-Compliance: Official figures themselves established large-scale violation of statutory mandates.

Contentions of the State

The State argued:

• Magisterial Inquiries Were Conducted : The Government claimed inquiries had been conducted in all custodial death cases.
• Compliance With Statutory Requirements: Authorities contended that they had substantially complied with legal obligations.
• However, the Court found: The State’s own figures contradicted its stand.

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings

1. Custodial Death Is A Grave Constitutional Failure

• The Court made extremely powerful observations regarding custodial violence.
• It observed: “Custodial violence is an affront to the very essence of justice.”
• The Court stated that: when a person dies in State custody, and the social contract between citizen and State breaks down.
• The Court emphasized: The State owes the highest duty of care to persons in custody.

2. Judicial Inquiry Is Mandatory, Not Optional

• The Court interpreted: Section 176(1-A) CrPC (now Section 196(2) BNSS)
• The provision states whenever death, disappearance, rape occurs in custody, inquiry SHALL be conducted by Judicial Magistrate.
• The Court stressed: The word “shall” makes the provision mandatory.
• Thus: Executive Magistrates cannot replace Judicial Magistrates.

3. Executive Inquiry Violates Independence

The Court explained why Judicial Magistrates are necessary:

• Because: police cannot investigate themselves independently, Executive Magistrates remain part of executive machinery, impartiality is compromised.
• The Court stated: The legislature intentionally shifted the power to the Judicial Branch to ensure independence.
• Thus: Judicial inquiry is a constitutional safeguard.

4. State Displayed “Systemic Disregard” For Law

• The Court was shocked that: 262 inquiries were conducted by Executive Magistrates, even though law prohibited it.
• Further: State data itself was mathematically inconsistent.
• The Court noted: 262 executive inquiries + 225 judicial inquiries = 487 inquiries, even though total deaths reported were: only 427.
• The Court observed: This reflected a shocking disregard for law and record maintenance.

5. Article 21 Violated

• The Court held: custodial deaths directly implicate Article 21.
• Article 21 guarantees: life, dignity, fair procedure.
• Improper inquiries: Destroy accountability, weaken constitutional protections.
• Thus: non-compliance with judicial inquiry requirement is not a mere procedural defect.
• It is: A constitutional violation.

6. Rule Against “Judge In Own Cause”

• The Court applied an important Natural Justice principle: Nemo Judex In Causa Sua
• (No person should be judge in his own cause)
• If executive authorities themselves investigate custodial deaths: Independence disappears.
• Thus: Executive inquiries cannot substitute judicial inquiries.

7. Compensation Is Constitutional Remedy

• The Court observed: compensation in custodial death cases is: not merely civil compensation.
• It is: Constitutional remediation, because the State failed to protect life.

Final Verdict

High Court held that: Judicial inquiry under: Section 176(1-A) CrPC, Section 196(2) BNSS is mandatory.

• Executive Magistrate inquiries cannot substitute Judicial Magistrate inquiries.
• State directed to: identify officers responsible, explain non-compliance in 262 cases.
• Fresh judicial inquiries ordered in cases improperly handled by Executive Magistrates.
• Future custodial death/disappearance/rape cases must: be reported within 24 hours to: NHRC, State Human Rights Commission, Principal District Judge.
• Judicial Magistrate to be appointed within 48 hours.
• SOP and model inquiry format directed to be prepared by Jharkhand Judicial Academy.