Introduction:

In Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Ranchi & Others, W.P. (PIL) No. 1218 of 2022, the Jharkhand High Court took serious note of the State’s disclosure that 437 custodial deaths occurred between 2018 and 2025, while there was no clarity in most instances as to whether the mandatory judicial inquiry under Section 176(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—now Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—had been conducted. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a public interest litigation filed to ensure strict compliance with the statutory mandate that requires a judicial inquiry by a Judicial Magistrate in every case of death, disappearance, or rape occurring in police or judicial custody. The matter, pending for some time, acquired renewed urgency after an affidavit filed by Mrs. Vandana Dadel, Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, enclosed a chart revealing the alarming number of custodial deaths. Although the chart indicated whether the deaths were reported to a Magistrate, it did not clarify whether the legally mandated independent judicial inquiries had actually been conducted. Viewing this omission as significant, the Court directed the Home Secretary to file a comprehensive affidavit detailing compliance not only under the CrPC but also under the corresponding provisions of the BNSS, particularly since the data extended up to 2025. The Court also required disclosure regarding adherence to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) guidelines in such cases. The proceedings thus underscore a crucial constitutional concern: whether statutory safeguards intended to ensure transparency and accountability in custodial settings are being meaningfully implemented.

Arguments and Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, represented by Md. Shadab Ansari, approached the High Court through a public interest litigation, contending that the State machinery was not fully complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 176(1-A) CrPC. It was argued that custodial deaths strike at the very heart of constitutional governance, implicating Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee the right to life and equality before the law. The petitioner emphasized that Section 176(1-A), introduced as a safeguard against abuse of power, mandates that in every case of death, disappearance, or rape in custody, an inquiry must be conducted by the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate in addition to the police investigation. This provision, it was argued, is not directory but mandatory, and its object is to ensure independent scrutiny of custodial incidents, thereby preventing concealment of foul play and reinforcing public confidence in the justice system. The petitioner expressed grave concern over the State’s affidavit, which, while acknowledging 437 custodial deaths over a span of seven years, failed to categorically state whether judicial inquiries were conducted in each case. The absence of clear data, according to the petitioner, pointed towards either non-compliance or administrative opacity, both of which undermine the rule of law. The petitioner further argued that mere reporting of deaths to a Magistrate does not satisfy the statutory requirement; what the law mandates is an independent judicial inquiry. Additionally, the petitioner urged the Court to examine whether the State had complied with the guidelines issued by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which lay down procedural safeguards, including immediate reporting, post-mortem examination by qualified doctors, videography of autopsy, and prompt communication to the Commission. The petitioner contended that failure to conduct judicial inquiries or adhere to NHRC guidelines would amount to systemic violation of constitutional rights and sought directions for strict compliance, transparency, and accountability.

Submissions on Behalf of the State of Jharkhand:

Appearing for the State, Mr. Gaurav Raj placed reliance on the affidavit filed by Mrs. Vandana Dadel, Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management. The affidavit included a chart detailing 437 custodial deaths between 2018 and 2025. The State submitted that the deaths had been reported to the Magistrate, and investigations were carried out in accordance with prevailing procedures. However, the chart did not comprehensively specify in each case whether a separate judicial inquiry under Section 176(1-A) CrPC had been conducted. The State sought time to file a more detailed affidavit clarifying compliance with the statutory mandate. It was indicated that some deaths were due to natural causes, illness, or suicide, and that police investigations had been undertaken. The State did not dispute the binding nature of Section 176(1-A) CrPC but suggested that compliance may vary depending on the circumstances of each case. Regarding the transition from CrPC to BNSS, the State acknowledged that Section 196 of the BNSS now corresponds to Section 176(1-A) and assured the Court that future compliance would be ensured under the new statutory regime. However, the State did not furnish conclusive data demonstrating that independent judicial inquiries were conducted in all 437 cases. The absence of such clarity prompted the Bench to express concern.

Court’s Analysis and Observations:

The Division Bench carefully examined the statutory framework and reiterated the mandatory character of Section 176(1-A) CrPC. The Court observed that the provision was enacted to strengthen accountability in custodial settings, recognizing that incidents occurring within the confines of police stations or prisons require independent scrutiny. The Court emphasized that the statutory language clearly mandates that, in addition to the police investigation, a judicial inquiry by the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate must be conducted in cases of custodial death, disappearance, or rape. This dual mechanism is designed to ensure transparency, impartiality, and credibility. The Bench noted that the affidavit filed by the State, while disclosing the number of custodial deaths, did not answer the critical question: whether independent judicial inquiries were held in each case. The Court remarked that information regarding such inquiries is crucial, particularly when the number of custodial deaths is as high as 437. It underscored that mere reporting of a death to a Magistrate does not satisfy the statutory requirement; what is required is an inquiry conducted by the Magistrate. The Court further directed that the affidavit to be filed by the Home Secretary must also clarify compliance with Section 196 of the BNSS, given that the data extended from 2023 to 2025. Additionally, the Court mandated disclosure regarding adherence to NHRC guidelines in custodial death cases. The Bench expressed concern that the current affidavit and chart were unclear as to whether the cause of death had been determined solely by police authorities or whether an independent judicial inquiry had been undertaken. The Court highlighted that statutory safeguards are not mere formalities but essential protections to rule out foul play and uphold constitutional values. It granted the State a final opportunity to file a comprehensive affidavit by March 13, 2026, and listed the matter for further consideration on March 19, 2026.

Judicial Directions and Continuing Oversight:

Rather than disposing of the PIL, the High Court adopted a supervisory approach, reflecting the seriousness of the issue. The Court’s directions were precise: the Home Secretary must file a comprehensive affidavit detailing, for each of the 437 custodial deaths, whether a judicial inquiry under Section 176(1-A) CrPC or Section 196 BNSS was conducted; if not, the reasons must be disclosed. The affidavit must also indicate whether NHRC guidelines were followed. By doing so, the Court signaled that compliance with statutory mandates in custodial matters is non-negotiable. The matter remains pending, underscoring the judiciary’s role as guardian of constitutional rights and overseer of executive accountability in matters involving deprivation of liberty.