india-map

FIND YOUR MP

Switch to Hindi (हिंदी)
Parliament

The Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010

Anirudh - August 12, 2010

The Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on April 26, 2010, and was passed by the Lok Sabha on May 6 (See Bill Summary here).  The Bill was not referred to a Standing Committee of Parliament.  The Bill has been introduced to allow India to ratify the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.  The Convention against Torture requires member countries to bring their domestic legislation in conformity with the provisions of the Convention.  The main features of the Bill, and the issues are highlighted below (For the PRS Legislative Brief on the Bill, click here). Main features of the Torture Bill

Features Explanation
Definition of ‘torture’ A public servant or any person with a public servant’s  consent commits torture if all three conditions are met:
  1. An act results in (i) Grievous hurt to any person  (Grievous hurt as defined in the Indian Penal Code - includes damage to limbs or organs); or (ii) danger to life, limb or health (mental pr physical) of any person, and
  2. The act is done intentionally, and
  3. The act is done with the purpose of getting information or a confession.
When is torture punishable?
  1. When it is committed for gaining a confession or other information for detecting an offence, and
  2. The torture is committed on certain grounds such as religion, race, language, caste, or ‘any other ground’.
Conditions under which courts can admit complaints
  1. The complaint has to be made within six months of the torture having been committed.
  2. The approval of the central or state government appointing the accused public servant has been taken.

The definition of torture The definition of torture raises the following issues:

  • It is inconsistent with the definition of torture in the Convention against Torture which India seeks to ratify;
  • It does not include many acts amounting to torture which are punishable under the Indian Penal Code;
  • It adds a requirement of proving the intention of the accused person to commit torture.  Current provisions in the IPC do not have this requirement.
  • Grievous hurt does not include mental suffering or pain.

Dilution of existing laws on torture The Bill makes it difficult for those accused of torture to be tried.  This is because (a) complaints against acts of torture have to be made within six months, and (b) the previous sanction of the appropriate government has to be sought before a court can entertain a complaint.

Relevant provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Bill.
Subject Criminal Procedure Code Bill
Requirement of government sanction Sanction needed if (a) a public servant is not removable except with the sanction of the appropriate government, and (b) the public servant was acting in the course of his duties. Prior sanction of the appropriate government needed in all cases.
Time limits for filing complaints Time-limits exist for offences punishable with maximum imprisonment of up to three years. No time limits for offences which are punishable with imprisonment of more than three years. There is a time-limit though torture is punishable with maximum imprisonment of up to ten years.  Complaints have to be filed within six months.
Sources: Sections 197 and 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; PRS.

Independent authority to investigate complaints There is no independent mechanism/ authority to investigate complaints of torture. The investigating agency in most cases of torture would be the police.  In many cases, personnel of the police would also be  alleged to have committed torture.  In such cases, the effectiveness of investigations in incidents of torture will be affected.

Independent authorities in other countries to investigate incidents of torture.
Country Authority/ Institution
France Comptroller General of the places of deprivation of liberty
Germany The Federal Agency for the Prevention of Torture
New Zealand Human Rights Commission, Police Complaints Authority, Children’s Commissioner
United Kingdom 18 different organisations, including Independent Monitoring Board, Independent Custody Visiting Associations, etc.
Sources: National Preventive Mechanisms, UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture; PRS.

Police Personnel sent for trials under existing laws, and convictions

Constitution

Explainer: Removal of Judges from Office

Roshni Sinha - April 20, 2018

Today, some Members of Parliament initiated proceedings for the removal of the current Chief Justice of India by submitting a notice to the Chairman of Rajya Sabha.  A judge may be removed from office through a motion adopted by Parliament on grounds of ‘proven misbehaviour or incapacity’.  While the Constitution does not use the word ‘impeachment’, it is colloquially used to refer to the proceedings under Article 124 (for the removal of a Supreme Court judge) and Article 218 (for the removal of a High Court judge).

The Constitution provides that a judge can be removed only by an order of the President, based on a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament.  The procedure for removal of judges is elaborated in the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968.  The Act sets out the following steps for removal from office:

  • Under the Act, an impeachment motion may originate in either House of Parliament. To initiate proceedings: (i) at least 100 members of Lok Sabha may give a signed notice to the Speaker, or (ii) at least 50 members of Rajya Sabha may give a signed notice to the Chairman.  The Speaker or Chairman may consult individuals and examine relevant material related to the notice.  Based on this, he or she may decide to either admit the motion or refuse to admit it.
  • If the motion is admitted, the Speaker or Chairman (who receives it) will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the complaint. It will comprise: (i) a Supreme Court judge; (ii) Chief Justice of a High Court; and (iii) a distinguished jurist.  The committee will frame charges based on which the investigation will be conducted.  A copy of the charges will be forwarded to the judge who can present a written defence.
  • After concluding its investigation, the Committee will submit its report to the Speaker or Chairman, who will then lay the report before the relevant House of Parliament. If the report records a finding of misbehaviour or incapacity, the motion for removal will be taken up for consideration and debated.
  • The motion for removal is required to be adopted by each House of Parliament by: (i) a majority of the total membership of that House; and (ii) a majority of at least two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. If the motion is adopted by this majority, the motion will be sent to the other House for adoption.
  • Once the motion is adopted in both Houses, it is sent to the President, who will issue an order for the removal of the judge.

Recent Posts

  1. 1. A note of gratitude to Mr. N. Vaghul
  2. 2. What is Fuelling Power Sector Losses?
  3. 3. First no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed today
  4. 4. Anti-cheating laws for competitive examinations
  5. 5. Uttarakhand Assembly concludes 2-day session; 13 Bills introduced and passed