-
by sayum
07 July 2026 3:12 PM
“Custodial Violence is a Naked Violation of Human Dignity… Whenever Human Dignity is Wounded, Civilisation Takes a Step Backward”— In a momentous judgment delivered on 21st July 2025, the Supreme Court of India, overturned a High Court decision that had refused to grant justice to a police constable who himself fell victim to one of the most horrifying episodes of custodial torture in recent history. Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta exercised its extraordinary constitutional powers under Articles 136 and 142, delivering blistering criticism of the institutional apathy displayed by the Jammu & Kashmir police authorities.
The apex court not only ordered the registration of an FIR for custodial torture, but also transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), quashed a malicious counter FIR filed against the victim under Section 309 IPC, and directed the Union Territory administration to pay ₹50,00,000 as interim compensation to the victim for gross violation of his constitutional rights. In the words of the Court, “The injuries caused to the appellant during his illegal detention, particularly the complete mutilation of his genitalia… are grave reminders of the inhuman torture meted out to the appellant while detaining him illegally… the cumulative effect of all these facts is deeply shocking to the conscience of this Court.”
A Grisly Tale Of Custodial Horror That Forced Supreme Court To Intervene
The genesis of this case traces back to February 2023, when Khursheed Ahmad Chohan, a serving constable in the Jammu & Kashmir Police, was summoned to the Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC), Kupwara, ostensibly for questioning in connection with a narcotics enquiry. What followed was a saga of horror—Chohan was detained illegally for six days without being formally arrested and subjected to ghastly custodial torture, culminating in his testicles being severed and brought to the hospital in a plastic bag by a police officer.
Despite the glaring medical evidence, the authorities refused to register an FIR against the perpetrators. Instead, a counter FIR (FIR No. 32 of 2023) was lodged against Chohan under Section 309 IPC, alleging that he had attempted suicide. Chohan’s wife, Rubina Aktar, moved the High Court seeking justice, but her efforts were stonewalled when the High Court, in its judgment dated 18th September 2023, directed only a preliminary enquiry by the Senior Superintendent of Police Kupwara, who himself had issued the summoning orders.
Supreme Court’s Unflinching Stand: “Custodial Violence Is A Naked Violation Of Human Dignity… A Calculated Assault On Human Dignity”
While analysing the case, the Supreme Court did not mince words in calling out the constitutional violations. It observed that “Custodial violence is a naked violation of human dignity… Whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backward.” The Court noted that the medical records from Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS), Soura-Srinagar, unequivocally demonstrated the horror inflicted upon the appellant, stating, “Medical documents conclusively establish the horrific nature of the injuries which inter alia include complete mutilation of genitalia with both testicles removed, a 10 cm x 5 cm laceration on the scrotum, tenderness on palms and feet, bruises on buttocks extending to thighs, multiple vegetative particles in the rectum, and fractures throughout the body.”
The Court tore apart the High Court’s reasoning, labelling its approach “a flagrant violation of the principle of nemo judex in causa sua,” highlighting that the preliminary inquiry was entrusted to “the very officer under whose jurisdiction the alleged torture occurred.”
“No Police Officer Can Be Allowed To Be A Judge In His Own Cause”: Court Orders Mandatory FIR Registration Under Lalita Kumari Principles
Invoking the landmark Constitution Bench judgment in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, the Court reiterated the inviolable principle that “the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.” The Court found it irrefutable that the victim’s wife had filed a complaint detailing cognizable offences, supported by undeniable medical evidence, which the police wilfully ignored.
In withering criticism, the Court said, “The failure of local police authorities to register an FIR despite clear disclosure of cognizable offences supported by compelling medical evidence constitutes a direct violation of the appellant’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.”
“A Cruel Transformation: Victim Made Accused By A False Counter FIR” — Supreme Court Quashes Malicious FIR Filed Against The Victim
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the State’s attempt to shield guilty officers by fabricating a suicide narrative. The Court noted the absurdity of the case against the appellant stating, “It is foolhardy to suggest that a rational person would subject himself to complete genital mutilation and cause injuries at inaccessible body parts so as to avoid questioning in a drug case.”
Referring to the Bhajan Lal principles for quashing FIRs, the Court ruled, “The registration of FIR No. 32 of 2023 against the victim of custodial torture constitutes a classic example of institutional abuse and perversion of criminal justice machinery to shield the real perpetrators while victimising the complainant.” The Court also invoked Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 to reinforce the illegality of prosecuting attempted suicide claims.
CBI Entrusted With Investigation To Preserve Justice: “The Majesty Of Law Demands Nothing Less”
Commenting on the necessity to transfer the investigation to the CBI, the Court remarked, “The current scenario, where the accused officers continue to investigate the very person they allegedly tortured, makes a mockery of the criminal justice system.” The Supreme Court invoked principles from Mohd. Anis v. Union of India, R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P., and the Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights case to justify CBI intervention.
“We are of the considered opinion that… only investigation by an independent agency, i.e., CBI can restore public faith in the criminal justice system, ensure that this dehumanising crime does not go unpunished, and guarantee that the truth emerges without any institutional bias or cover-up attempts,” the Court ruled.
“Where Fundamental Rights Are Violated, Compensation Must Follow”: Court Awards ₹50 Lakh Compensation For Brutal Custodial Torture
In a strongly worded declaration of constitutional accountability, the Court said, “It is now well-settled in Indian constitutional jurisprudence that where fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are violated by State machinery, appropriate monetary compensation may be an effective remedy.”
The Bench invoked precedents from D.K. Basu, Nilabati Behera, and Sube Singh cases to direct interim compensation of ₹50 lakh to the victim, recoverable from the erring officials after the CBI probe.
The Court concluded with a powerful assertion: “The violation of Article 21 is not only evident but egregious… The majesty of law demands nothing less than complete independence and impartiality in investigating crimes that shock the conscience of society.”
The Verdict That Will Echo Across Custodial Torture Cases
Setting aside the High Court judgment in totality, the Supreme Court ordered:
Registration of FIR by the CBI within 7 days
Arrest of guilty officers within 1 month
Completion of investigation within 90 days
Quashing of FIR No. 32/2023 against the appellant
Award of ₹50 lakh interim compensation
Recovery of compensation from guilty officers post departmental proceedings
This powerful judgment fortifies the judiciary’s resolve to combat custodial violence and to protect the fundamental rights of even the most vulnerable within the State apparatus. In the Supreme Court’s own emphatic words, “Custodial violence strikes a blow at the rule of law… and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backward.”
Date of Decision: 21st July 2025
