Custodial killings ‘worst crime’: Jharkhand High Court raps state
Why This Matters for UPPSC
The Jharkhand High Court's strong condemnation and order for fresh probes highlight the judiciary's role in upholding human rights and ensuring accountability of the state machinery. This directly relates to the protection of fundamental rights under Article 21 and the state's obligation to prevent custodial violence. The court's intervention underscores the importance of judicial review in governance.
Mains Analytical Angles
- 1governance/institutional dimension
Exam Question
How does judicial oversight ensure accountability of law enforcement agencies in preventing custodial violence?
Open with: National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
- 2constitutional/legal dimension
Exam Question
Discuss the constitutional safeguards against custodial torture and the role of High Courts in their enforcement.
Open with: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
- 3policy/human rights dimension
Exam Question
Evaluate the effectiveness of existing legal and policy frameworks in India to prevent custodial deaths and suggest reforms.
Open with: Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)
Constitutional & Statutory Links
- §Art. 21 (Part III) — Right to life and personal liberty, interpreted to include the right to live with human dignity and protection from torture.
- §Art. 226 (Part VI) — High Courts' power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
Answer Opener
Art. 21 (Part III) — Right to life and personal liberty, interpreted to include the right to live with human dignity and protection from torture.
In-depth topic analysis available
Full history, key facts, mains themes & PYQ angles in one place