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

Policy

Arguments regarding FDI in retail

Vishnu - December 4, 2012

After months of discussion,  the issue of FDI in retail is being deliberated in the Lok Sabha today.  In September 2012, the Cabinet had approved 51% of FDI in multi-brand retail (stores selling more than one brand).  Under these regulations, foreign retail giants like Walmart and Tesco can set up shop in India.  Discussions on permitting FDI in retail have focused on the effect of FDI on unorganised retailers, farmers and consumers. Earlier, the central government commissioned the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) to examine the impact of organised retail on unorganised retail. The Standing Committee on Commerce also tabled a report on Foreign and Domestic Investment in the Retail Sector in May, 2009 while the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) released a discussion paper examining FDI in multi-brand retail in July, 2010.  Other experts have also made arguments – both in support of, and in opposition to, the move to permit FDI in retail sales. The table below summarises some of these arguments from the perspective of various stakeholders as collated from the above reports examining the issue.

Stakeholder

Supporting arguments (source)

Opposing arguments (source)
Unorganised retail
  • No evidence of impact on job losses (ICRIER).
  • The rate of closure of unorganised retail shops (4.2%) is lower than international standards (ICRIER).
  • Evidence from Indonesia and China show that traditional and modern retail can coexist and grow  (Reardon and Gulati).
  • Majority of small retailers keen to remain in operation even after emergence of organised retail (ICRIER).
  •  Unorganised retailers in the vicinity of organised retailers saw their volume of business and profit decline but this effect weakens over time (ICRIER).
  • Other studies have estimated that traditional fruit and vegetable retailers experienced a 20-30% decline in incomes with the presence of supermarkets (Singh).
  • There is potential for employment loss in the value chain. A supermarket may create fewer jobs for the volume of produce handled (Singh).
  • Unemployment to increase as a result of retailers practicing product bundling (selling goods in combinations and bargains) and predatory pricing (Standing Committee).
Farmers
  • Significant positive impact on farmers as a result of direct sales to organised retailers.  For instance, cauliflower farmers receive a 25% higher price selling directly to organised retailers instead of government regulated markets (mandis).  Profits for farmers selling to organised retailers are about 60% higher than when selling to mandis (ICRIER).
  • Organised retail could remove supply chain inefficiencies through direct purchase from farmers and investment in better storage, distribution and transport systems.  FDI, in particular, could bring in new technology and ideas (DIPP).
  •  Current organised retail procures 60-70% from wholesale markets rather than farmers. There has been no significant impact on backend infrastructure investment (Singh).
  • There are other issues like irrigation, technology and credit in agriculture which FDI may not address (Singh).
  • Increased monopolistic strength could force farmers to sell at lower prices (Standing Committee).
Consumers
  • Organised retail lowers prices. Consumer spending increases with the entry of organised retail and lower income groups tend to save more (ICRIER).
  • It will lead to better quality and safety standards of products (DIPP).
  •  Evidence from some Latin American countries (Mexico, Nicaragua, Argentina), Africa (Kenya, Madagascar) and Asia (Thailand, Vietnam, India) reveal that supermarket prices for fruits and vegetables were higher than traditional retail prices (Singh).
  • Even with lower prices at supermarkets, low income households may prefer traditional retailers because they live far from supermarkets, they can bargain with traditional retailers and buy loose items (Singh).
  • Monopolistic power for retailers could result in high prices for consumers.

Source: ICRIER [1.  "Impact of Organized Retailing on the Unorganized Sector", ICRIER, September 2008]; Standing Committee [2.  "Foreign and domestic investment in retail sector", Standing Committee on Commerce, May 13, 2009]; Singh (2011) [3. "FDI in Retail: Misplaced Expectations and Half-truths",  Sukhpal Singh, Economic and Political Weekly, December 17, 2011];  Reardon and Gulati (2008)  [4. "Rise of supermarkets and their development implications," IFPRI Discussion Paper, Thomas Reardon and Ashok Gulati, February 2008.]; DIPP [5. "Discussion Paper on FDI in Multi-brand Retail Trading", Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, July 6, 2010]

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