Allahabad HC Raps NHRC For Accepting Police Version & Closing Custodial Death of A Disabled Person
It is definitely most heartening to note that while displaying courage and pragmatism, the Allahabad High Court which is biggest High Court in not only just India or Asia alone or few continents alone but in all world and all continents with maximum advocates more than four lakhs enrolled with it in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Association For Advocacy And Legal Initiatives Lko vs State of UP Thru. Sec. Home Lko And Others in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. – 16563 of 2010 that was pronounced very recently on May 18, 2026 has rapped and censured the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) for accepting the police version as gospel truth and closing a case of custodial death of a disabled person. There must be zero tolerance for custodial death and here it is of a disabled person which makes the offence even far more serious. It comes as a fresh ray of hope that the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan and Hon’ble Mr Justice Siddharth Nandan minced absolutely just no words to state indubitably that the manner in which the NHRC investigated the case was most disappointing.
To recapitulate, we need to note that the victim Nahar Singh @ Sneh had been found dead in a police lockup in 2009. NHRC in 2011 closed the case after recording that the victim had committed suicide “on account of frustration from love affair” and therefore, the police personnel could not be blamed for any negligence. However, the matter remained alive and the pot kept boiling due to pendency of a public interest litigation (PIL) petition that had been filed by Association for Advocacy and Legal Initiatives seeking probe into Nahar Singh’s death. It merits noting that the Division Bench found that NHRC had made no attempt to record the statement of the victim’s father or any other related witnesses.
It also added that even the statements of the girl, with whom the victim was in relationship was not recorded. The Division Bench also took exception to Allahabad High Court’s own failure to decide the case in a timely manner. The matter will be next heard on August 10.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan for a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Siddharth Nandan sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This case discloses institutional failures. This is a PIL filed in the year 2010 and is still pending. Sixteen years down the line, the videography and the photographs of the scene of occurrence (hereinafter referred to as the “SOO”) and the postmortem are not being made available to this Court to enable it to proceed further.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 while laying bare the facts of the case stating that, “The subject matter of the PIL relates to the custodial death of Nahar Singh, a handicapped citizen. Nahar Singh @ Sneh was a physically handicapped person who died in police custody on 9.5.2009 in P.S. Dannahar, District Mainpuri. He was found hanging in the urinal part of the lockup. He is said to have used his belt to hang himself. On page 15 of the petition, there is a photocopy of the handicap certificate dated 12.9.2008 relating to the deceased which records that the deceased suffered from 40% physical disability. It is necessary to record here that a “Lock Up” within a police station is not a secluded place within which the activity cannot be seen. It is an area where persons are held temporarily or on police remand, before they are sent to the jail on judicial remand. It is a part of the police station which is enclosed with iron bars with a latch on the outside and the urinal is inside that area. It is almost an impossibility for anyone to do any activity within the urinal inside the lock up, unknown to the personnel in the police station as they are under constant vigil. Therefore, how a person with forty percent handicap could hang himself, within the confines of the lock up does not prima facie gel with the official version of the police and the State.”
As it turned out, the Division Bench then enunciates in para 3 that, “Apoorva Srivastava, in her capacity as coordinator of the “Association for Advocacy and Legal Initiatives” (hereinafter referred to as the AALI) files an affidavit on behalf of the petitioner, laying down the credentials of the AALI as an organization led by women who are committed to the protection and advancement of the rights of women, children and the marginalized communities. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit, she has given statistics relating to the custodial deaths in India and how the State of U.P. topped in cases of custodial deaths in the year 2021-22. The affidavit puts the number of custodial death cases in 2020-21 at 451 which had risen to 501 cases in 2021-22 as per the Government data. The petitioner-organization filed this PIL to unearth the truth relating to the custodial death of Nahar Singh.”
Most alarmingly and most forthrightly, the Division Bench candidly points out in para 4 that, “Disturbingly, the first institution that failed in this endeavour of unearthing the truth is this Court. The subject matter of the PIL was such that it warranted urgency and repeated listings with short dates to protect evidence and ensure their production before this Court for it to satisfy itself, that the contention of the State that the Nahar Singh committed suicide in the urinal of the lock up was true, and that there was no parallel hypothesis to that story. But before this Court could hold so, it was essential for it to examine the videography of the SOO and the postmortem to satisfy itself, that the videographic evidence did not scream of another story, altogether different from that of the State and the police. A case of this nature ought to have been concluded within three months from the date of its first listing with sustained pressure on the State to produce the videography and had it been so done, the probability of this Court having secured access to the videography was much higher than it is today. The procedural delay of sixteen years in this case has given an opportunity to the police and the State to cover its tracks in a manner that the truth remains obscured. The attempts by this Court to now lay its hands on the videographic evidence gets obfuscated on account of this delay.”
Most strikingly, the Division Bench points out in para 11 that, “The continued attempts by this Court to secure the videography are on account of an observation in the postmortem report, which while recording the external ante-mortem injuries, notes the presence of a knot mark/knot impression on the right side behind the ear. The same is inconsistent with the story of the police which says that the deceased hanged himself using his leather belt. If that be the case, the doctor conducting the postmortem should have seen the impression of the belt buckle on the neck and not a knot mark. A Knot mark is visible when a rope is used for hanging and the knot on the rope leaves its impression against the skin. As regard the internal injuries, upon the dissection of neck, the doctor has found “Hyoid bone intact , III, IV, V Tracheal Rings fractured, Epiglottis, Larynx both congested”. The fracture of the tracheal rings are more probable in a case of strangulation rather than hanging. The tracheal rings may fracture in a case of judicial hanging where the body drops from height, but improbable in a case where the deceased may have hanged himself with his feet almost touching the ground and more so where the person is suffering from 40% physical disability. This raises a reasonable suspicion if the deceased Nahar Singh was first strangulated within the police station and then to escape charges of custodial death or murder, his body was strung up in the urinal side inside the lockup by the police personnel. The only way the same can be ascertained is by viewing the videography of the SOO (which would reveal whether the body of the deceased was in a partial hanging position or a complete hanging position and whether there were marks on his body revealed in the postmortem report but not recorded by the doctor under duress of the police).”
Most significantly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 14 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “The report of the NHRC reproduced hereinabove reveals that if did nothing by way of an independent investigation at its end. It is unfortunate that the manner in which the worthy NHRC has investigated this case is most disappointing. The above proceedings clearly reveals that no attempt was ever made to record the statement of the father of the deceased or any of the witnesses who were known to the deceased. It has not recorded the statement of the girl with whom the deceased was in romantic liaison or her parents. It has not sent any team to record the statement of the neighbours or the police men present at the police station on that date of occurrence. In fact, the NHRC has not recorded the statement of any witness or a person who may have had knowledge about the case and neither has the NHRC sought the assistance of the State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “SHRC”) to send its team to record the statement of the witnesses and forward the same to the NHRC. Instead, the report of the NHRC has simply accepted the reports given by the SDM and the police as gospel truth without appreciating that in a case of custodial death, the police and the State administration are the most interested parties in order to hush up the crime and pass the same off as a suicide. If this is all that the NHRC was required to do and close the case of custodial death purely on the version given by the police which is an interested party, without seeking independent evidence from neutral witnesses within the family of the deceased, calls into question the very existence of the NHRC. Prima facie, this is the third institution that has failed in the present case, but this Court reserves its final findings on the conduct of the NHRC after hearing its counsel. As regards the videography the communication between the police and the NHRC in 2026, does not reveal that the NHRC had ever received videography. The report of the NHRC dated 08.10.2011 also does not refer to it having examined any videography or photographs of the SOO to arrive at the opinion that the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, there is reasonable cause to believe that the videography always remained with the police.”
Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 15 that, “As repeated attempts by this Court to secure the videography relevant in this case, which was done almost sixteen years ago have borne no fruit and with the State and the police being evasive in their response, this Court directs the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) through its ACB office at Ghaziabad, to secure those video recordings within a period of sixty days from the date of this order. While doing so, it is requested that there is no necessity to register an FIR at this stage as it would be acting under the directions of this Court. After securing the same, they shall produce it before this Court on the next date of hearing.”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench directs and holds in para 16 that, “Learned counsel for the petitioner is requested to make Central Bureau of Investigation through its In-charge, ACB Office, Ghaziabad as respondent no.7, during the course of the day.”
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 17 that, “List this case on 10th August, 2026.”
In sum, we thus see that the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court is not very happy with the manner in which NHRC has proceeded in this leading case and has strongly rapped the NHRC on its knuckles for so lightly accepting the police version as gospel truth and so easily closing the most serious case of custodial death of a disabled person which is a most serious crime that cannot be ever taken lightly under any circumstances. It is definitely most admirable to see that the Division Bench was candid enough to acknowledge and take note of its own abject failure to adjudicate the matter in a proper and timely manner. One fondly and most fervently hopes that truth will finally emerge and those guilty of custodial death will definitely be brought to book and punished most strictly so that men and women in uniform don’t consider themselves to be above the law of the land who can get away after indulging in custodial killing of even a disabled person!
Author Bio
