Official figures spark political firestorm

During Question Hour, former Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition Bhupesh Baghel sought detailed information on custodial deaths over the preceding 13 months. He asked whether judicial inquiries — mandatory in custodial deaths and guided by National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) protocols — had been completed in all cases, as reported by The Hindu.

Responding on behalf of the government, Deputy Chief Minister Vijay Sharma, who also holds the Home portfolio, confirmed that 66 inmates, including convicted prisoners, had died in custody during the specified period. He stated that:

• 18 cases have completed magisterial inquiries, and
• 48 cases remain under investigation.

Sharma assured the House that investigations were being conducted as per procedure and that action would follow if negligence was established.

However, the confirmation of the figures did little to calm tensions.

Opposition alleges overcrowding and healthcare breakdown

Baghel launched a sharp critique of the state’s prison administration, arguing that the figures pointed to a systemic crisis rather than isolated incidents.

According to him, prisons in Chhattisgarh are functioning at approximately 150% of their sanctioned capacity, severely undermining access to medical care and essential services. He questioned how such a high mortality figure could be divorced from structural conditions inside jails.

“How has law and order deteriorated to this extent?” Baghel asked in the House. “How many deaths have occurred in the last year, and what are the reasons?”

He further alleged that serious crimes — including murder, robbery, and extortion — had risen by nearly 35%, contending that rising crime rates coupled with prison overcrowding signal a deeper governance breakdown.

Opposition members argued that overcrowding, stretched medical infrastructure, and inadequate monitoring mechanisms could be contributing to preventable custodial deaths. They demanded immediate structural reforms, urgent strengthening of prison healthcare systems, and independent oversight.

The death of tribal leader Jeevan Thakur

The debate intensified when Baghel raised the case of tribal leader Jeevan Thakur, who died on December 4, 2025, while in judicial custody — a case that has drawn protests across Bastar, as reported by The Hindu.

According to Deputy CM Sharma’s statement in the House:

• Thakur was initially lodged in a jail in Kanker district.
• He was later shifted to a prison in Raipur following a court order.
• After his health deteriorated, he was admitted first to the Raipur district hospital and subsequently to the state-run Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, where he died during treatment.

Sharma said the jail superintendent informed the District Judge as per procedure, following which a committee was constituted to conduct an inquiry.

However, Baghel alleged that Thakur — described as a tribal community leader — had been falsely implicated in a case. He further claimed that Thakur was diabetic and did not receive timely medication or proper medical care in custody. According to the Opposition, there were complaints that medical advice was ignored by prison authorities.

Baghel emphasised that tribal communities in Bastar had staged protests demanding accountability and insisted that a magisterial inquiry was insufficient. He demanded that the matter be investigated by a House committee of the Legislative Assembly.

Sharma declined to comment directly on the demand for a legislative panel but maintained that the ongoing judicial inquiry should be allowed to conclude before further action is considered.

Bedlam, slogans, and walkout

As the exchange grew sharper, Congress MLAs stood up, raised slogans against the government, and disrupted proceedings. The Speaker attempted to restore order, but the protest escalated into a walkout by Opposition members.

The confrontation underscored a broader and recurring national concern: the condition of prisons, compliance with NHRC guidelines in custodial deaths, and the adequacy of medical care for inmates — especially undertrial prisoners and members of vulnerable communities.

Larger questions raised

The controversy raises multiple structural questions:

• Are judicial and magisterial inquiries sufficient safeguards in custodial death cases? Do these institutional checks and balances against state abuse which are available statutorily actually happen?

Judicial and magisterial inquiries into custodial deaths are not optional safeguards — they are statutorily mandated. Under Section 176(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate must conduct an inquiry in cases of death, disappearance, or rape in custody, in addition to the regular police investigation. The provision was introduced to address the inherent conflict of interest in police investigating themselves. Its equivalent now exists under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, thereby continuing the mandatory judicial oversight framework. On paper, this creates a layered accountability mechanism: FIR registration, police investigation, post-mortem examination, and independent magisterial inquiry — a structure intended to function as a check against state abuse.

However, the real question is not whether safeguards exist, but whether they operate meaningfully. Magisterial inquiries are often delayed, limited in scope, and heavily reliant on official records; their reports are rarely made public, and prosecutions do not automatically follow. Without transparency, time-bound completion, and clear consequences for negligence or abuse, these inquiries risk becoming procedural formalities rather than substantive accountability tools. The statutory framework under Section 176 CrPC and Section 196 BNSS is therefore institutionally sound in theory, but its effectiveness depends entirely on implementation, independence, and follow-through — without which the promise of checks and balances remains fragile.

• Is overcrowding directly contributing to preventable fatalities?
• Does the state’s prison healthcare infrastructure meet constitutional standards under Article 21 jurisprudence?
• Should legislative oversight mechanisms supplement judicial inquiries in sensitive cases?

While the government has assured procedural compliance and ongoing reforms, the Opposition has framed the 66 deaths not as statistical coincidence but as evidence of systemic strain.

As reported by The Hindu, the matter remains politically charged, with demands for accountability continuing both inside and outside the Assembly.

The numbers — 66 deaths in 13 months — now stand not merely as a legislative disclosure, but as the focal point of a deeper debate about custodial responsibility, institutional capacity, and the state’s duty of care toward those in its custody.

Related:

Counting the Caged: What India’s prison data refuses to see

A System Under Strain: India’s police and prisons in crisis shows Indian Justice Report 2025

Under trial Prisoners: MHA directs States/UTs to implement section 479 of BNSS

‘End discriminatory regimes of colonial era,’ SC declares provisions of State Prison Manuals unconstitutional

The post 66 Deaths in 13 Months: Uproar in Chhattisgarh Assembly by opposition over prison conditions and custodial accountability appeared first on SabrangIndia.