A Comparative Study of Custodial Safeguards in India, the United  Kingdom, and the United States: Legal Frameworks, Judicial Standards, and Human Rights Perspectives

Mohd Nihal; Dr. Sukriti Yadav

A Comparative Study of Custodial Safeguards in India, the United Kingdom, and the United States: Legal Frameworks, Judicial Standards, and Human Rights Perspectives

Author(s)	Mr. Mohd Nihal, Dr. Sukriti Yadav
Country	India
Abstract	Custodial violence remains a grave violation of human rights and poses a serious challenge to the rule of law across jurisdictions. It undermines the fundamental principles of dignity, fairness, and accountability that form the backbone of any democratic legal system. This study undertakes a comparative analysis of custodial safeguards in India, the United States, and the United Kingdom, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of their respective frameworks. In India, custodial safeguards largely derive from constitutional protections under Articles 20 and 21, reinforced through judicial pronouncements such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal. The Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to prevent custodial abuse, including requirements for arrest procedures, medical examinations, and legal representation. However, despite these safeguards, implementation remains inconsistent due to weak enforcement mechanisms and lack of accountability. In contrast, the United States emphasizes constitutional protections through landmark rulings such as Miranda v. Arizona, which ensures the right against self-incrimination and mandates informing detainees of their rights. The American system relies heavily on judicial enforcement and exclusionary rules to deter violations. The United Kingdom adopts a more structured statutory approach under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which provides detailed procedural safeguards, including custody records, legal access, and independent oversight mechanisms. The study reveals that while all three jurisdictions recognize the importance of custodial safeguards, their effectiveness depends on enforcement, transparency, and institutional accountability. India, in particular, must strengthen implementation mechanisms, ensure independent investigations, and adopt best practices from comparative jurisdictions to effectively combat custodial violence and uphold human rights.
Keywords	Pace, Psychological harm, judicial custody, Arrest Procedures; Torture Prevention;
Published In	Volume 8, Issue 2, March-April 2026
Published On	2026-03-23

View / Download PDF File

E-ISSN 2582-2160

doi

CrossRef DOI is assigned to each research paper published in our journal.

IJFMR DOI prefix is
10.36948/ijfmr

Downloads

Research Paper Format Copyright Permission Form and Undertaking Form Cover Page Vol 8 Isu 2 Cover Page Vol 8 Isu 1 Cover Page Vol 7 Isu 6

All research papers published on this website are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, and all rights belong to their respective authors/researchers.

CC-BY-SA

About IJFMR Fees & Payment Current Issue Publication Archive	Submit Research Paper Track Submission Status Publication Guidelines Publication Ethics Peer Review & Plagiarism	Join as a Reviewer Editors & Reviewers Reviewer Referral Program Get Reviewer Membership Certi.	Website/Journal Policies Usage Policy Content Policies Privacy Policy

Contact Us		+91-9687-828-838	editor@ijfmr.com

International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research

A Widely Indexed Open Access Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Bi-monthly Scholarly International Journal

A Comparative Study of Custodial Safeguards in India, the United Kingdom, and the United States: Legal Frameworks, Judicial Standards, and Human Rights Perspectives

Share this