What does SC say?
- India does not have an Anti-Torture Law
- India had signed the UN Convention against torture way back in 1997, had still not ratified it. The Convention defines torture as a criminal offence
- Due to this, extraditions are difficult
- 90% of the States had no objection for a special law on torture and the National Human Right Commission itself had strongly supported the need for such a law
Steps taken so far!
- India may be finding it tough to secure extraditions because there is a fear within the international community that the accused persons would be subject to torture here.
- The court referred to the setback suffered by the CBI in its efforts to get Kim Davy — a Danish citizen and prime accused in the Purulia arms drop case of 1995 — extradited from Denmark. A Danish court had rejected the plea on the ground that he would risk “torture or other inhuman treatment” in India.
- Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010 was passed by Lok Sabha in 2010 itself. But even six years after that, it has not been passed by RS.
- India had signed the UN Convention against torture way back in 1997, had still not ratified it.
Questions The time is ripe for India to ratify UN Convention against torture and formulate its own anti-torture law. Discuss ]]>
- Enacting a law prohibiting torture is both a moral imperative and a pragmatic necessity.
- The Union government has informed the Supreme Court that it is seriously considering the 273rd Report of the Law Commission, which has recommended that India ratify the United Nations Convention against Torture and pass a law to prevent torture and punish its perpetrators.
- A few months ago, the court had sought the Centre’s response to a petition filed in public interest by former Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar, who complained about the delay in India ratifying the UN Convention, which it had signed in 1997.
- The petition had also favoured a standalone legislation to prohibit torture. The court disposed of the matter without any direction after being informed that the matter was under serious consideration.
- The Centre should now act on its own with a sense of urgency. There can be no reason to further delay legislative measures to eliminate all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading forms of treatment.
- At an earlier hearing, the court had itself highlighted why a standalone law is needed.
- India has made many requests for extradition of offenders from other countries, and the absence of an anti-torture law may prevent these countries from acceding to India’s requests.
- Previous year, extradition courts in the United Kingdom refused to send two persons to India to face trial, one of them on the ground that there was “no effective system of protection from torture in the receiving state”.
- Conditions in India’s prisons, especially the chronic problem of over-crowding, are a reason for the country’s extradition requests failing.
- Few would disagree that ratifying the UN Convention and following it up with a domestic law against torture will not only be in the national interest but also have positive implications for the protection of human rights.
- Custodial violence continues to be prevalent in the country. The recent example of a bus conductor being forced to confess to murdering a schoolchild is a pointer to the use of torture as an investigative tool among policemen.
- The Prevention of Torture Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha in 2010 to address the problem, but it lapsed after it was referred to a Select Committee in the Rajya Sabha.
- The Law Commission, to which the question was referred in July this year, produced a report within three months. It also submitted a draft Bill for the government’s consideration.
- The government should accept the recommendations without delay as it not only provides a penal framework for punishing public servants who inflict torture, but also lays down that just compensation be paid to victims.