By letter dated 28 June 1994 the Special Rapporteur informed the Government that he had received reports alleging that custodial torture was practised by the police in many regions of India. The reports suggested that torture was primarily employed to extract confessions or other information from criminal suspects. In some cases, police officials were said to practise torture as an extra-legal method of inflicting punishment. A substantial number of incidents of torture allegedly ended with the death of the victim.

The Special Rapporteur further transmitted information according to which the practice of custodial rape by members of the police and security forces occurred with frequency. In areas of internal conflict and disturbances, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir, the practice was reported to be systematic. 

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), established by presidential ordinance in September 1993, reportedly lacked independent investigative machinery, having to rely on investigative staff provided by the Government who operated under the supervision of the Director-General of Police. 

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the regular responses of the Government; however, they do not cover all the cases transmitted to them. He is also aware that India has a highly developed legal system with a reputation for vigorous independence. This has certainly contributed to the fact that many of the cases referred to in this and previous reports has led to some action by way of formal inquiry and disciplinary measures. At the same time, it is apparent that few incidents, in what is credibly alleged to be a widespread, if not endemic phenomenon, are prosecuted and even fewer lead to conviction of the perpetrators. It is also to be noted that very many cases that come to the attention of the Special Rapporteur are those that result in death, in other words, those where torture may have been applied with the most extreme results. This must be a minority of the cases of torture in the country. 

The Government transmitted a reply to these general allegations on 23 November 1994, stating that existing constitutional and legal provisions provided an elaborate framework of safeguards. The NHRC has wide-ranging powers, including those to require any person to furnish information in an inquiry, to enter buildings and seize documents and to approach the Supreme Court or High Court for direction. In addition, the Home Ministry and State Governments had established Human Rights Cells (HRC), whose function was to monitor custodial crimes. 

The Government had also recently proposed amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure and introduced them in Parliament in May 1994. These include: prohibition on the arrest of women after sunset or before sunrise except in unavoidable circumstances; the requirement that an arresting police officer give information of the arrest and place of detention to such persons as may be nominated by the arrested person; the requirement that a copy of the report of the medical examination be furnished to the arrested person or to his or her nominee; the requirement of a judicial magisterial inquiry in cases of death, disappearance or rape in custody and the requirement that a post-mortem be carried out within 24 hours of custodial death.