1 hour ago
6
ARTICLE AD BOX
4 min readRanchiFeb 22, 2026 08:00 AM IST
“The executive cannot determine on its own whether a death was natural or otherwise. That determination must be made by a judicial magistrate,” Ansari added, referring to the court’s observations.
Citing nearly 450 custodial deaths reported in Jharkhand between 2018 and 2025, the Jharkhand High Court has directed the state government to file a comprehensive affidavit clarifying whether mandatory judicial inquiries were conducted in each case, as required under criminal law.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW VIDEO
Hearing a PIL that was filed in 2022, a Division Bench of Chief Justice M S Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed this week that the data submitted by the state Home Department, which is around 437 deaths in police and judicial custody during the period, did not clearly specify whether judicial magistrate inquiries were held in all cases.
The court referred to section 176(1-A) of the CrPC, which mandates that where a person dies or disappears, or rape is alleged, while in police or court-authorised custody, an inquiry “shall be held” by a Judicial Magistrate, apart from the regular police investigation. The Bench also took note of the provisions under section 196 of the BNSS, which retain similar safeguards.
The PIL was filed in 2022 after annexing replies to a question raised in the state legislature, which showed over 160 custodial deaths between 2018 and 2022. Following this, the court directed the state to provide updated and complete data till 2025.
The court asked the Home Secretary to file a fresh affidavit specifying in how many of the cases judicial inquiries were conducted and to disclose details where such inquiries were not held. It also directed that the affidavit clarify compliance with BNSS provisions for deaths reported between 2023 and 2025. The court further sought to determine the nature and cause of death and whether compliance with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) guidelines was ensured.
“All this is necessary because the affidavit filed or the chart accompanying the affidavit is not clear whether the cause of death has been determined by the police authorities themselves or whether the same is a result of any judicial inquiry as is contemplated under the law. Further, considering the number of deaths, it is crucial to see whether the safeguards provided under the law to rule out foul play were duly complied with or not,” the court said.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Md. Shadab Ansari told the court that despite the clear statutory mandate, the provision has not been properly implemented in Jharkhand in so many years. “When the broader data was placed, it showed that the number is extremely high, close to 450 deaths in police and judicial custody across Jharkhand,” he said.
Story continues below this ad
“The executive cannot determine on its own whether a death was natural or otherwise. That determination must be made by a judicial magistrate,” Ansari added, referring to the court’s observations.
The petitioner’s counsel also alleged that police custody deaths appear underreported. “In police custody cases, the numbers are shown as low because often the authorities disown them, saying that the person escaped and later hanged himself or presenting some other version. That is why police custody figures seem to be less,” he alleged.
Appearing for the state, counsel Gaurav Raj said that the court had been examining whether magisterial inquiries were conducted in cases of custodial deaths, whether in police or judicial custody.
Raj said that on earlier dates, the court had specifically asked the state to indicate whether magisterial inquiries had been conducted in each and every custodial death case, and the state had furnished case-wise details accordingly.
Story continues below this ad
He added that the present issue before the court relates to clarification on the meaning of “Magistrate” under the CrPC and the BNSS.
According to him, the provisions mention “Magistrate”, but do not designate a specific category, and said that the question now is whether it refers exclusively to a Judicial Magistrate or could include an Executive Magistrate. “The court has asked the state to clarify this aspect in a further affidavit at the next hearing,” he said.
The High Court has directed the Home Secretary to file the detailed affidavit by March 13, 2026. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on March 19.
Shubham Tigga is a Correspondent at The Indian Express, presently based in Pune, where he covers the intersections of infrastructure, labor, and the modern economy. His reporting focuses on civil aviation, urban mobility, the gig economy, and workers' unions, providing critical insights into how transit and commercial sectors impact the daily lives of citizens. Expertise & Background Before moving to Pune, he reported extensively from his home state of Chhattisgarh, where he focused on Indigenous (Adivasi) issues, environmental justice, and grassroots struggles in mainland India. This experience gives him a unique lens through which he analyzes the impact of large-scale infrastructure projects on local communities. Academic Foundation He is an alumnus of the prestigious Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), where he honed his skills in investigative reporting and ethical journalism. His academic training, combined with his field experience in Central India, allows him to navigate complex socio-economic landscapes with nuance and accuracy. You can reach out to him on LinkedIn ... Read More
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
English (US) ·