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:
|
| When is torture punishable? |
|
| Conditions under which courts can admit complaints |
|
The definition of torture The definition of torture raises the following issues:
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 
The Gujarat High Court is hearing an important case related to the appointment of the Lokayukta in Gujarat. The issue is whether the Governor can appoint the Lokayukta at his discretion or whether appointment can be made only upon obtaining the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers led by the Chief Minister. During the period 2006-2010, the Gujarat state government submitted names of two prospective appointees for the post of Lokayukta to the Governor. But no appointment was made during this period. On August 26, 2011 the Governor appointed retired judge R.A.Mehta as Lokayukta, whose name was not among those submitted by the state government. The Gujarat state government moved the High Court to quash the appointment on the ground that the Governor made the appointment without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers led by the Chief Minister. Section 3 of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, provides in part that “the Governor shall by warrant under his hand and seal, appoint a person to be known as Lokayukta”. The Governor acted under this section to make the appointment of Lokayukta. However, the state government has argued that section 3 has to be understood in light of Article 163(1) of the Constitution. Article 163(1) provides that the Governor shall be aided and advised in the exercise of his functions by a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head. Thus, as per this line of argument, the Governor violated the provision of Article 163(1) when she failed to take the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers led by the Chief Minister before exercising the function of appointing the Lokayukta. At the time of writing this post, news reports suggested that the two judges hearing the case are divided over the issue. It remains to be seen whether this issue will be referred to a larger bench. The outcome of this case could have wider implications on the constitutional role of governors if it sets guideposts on the extent to which they act independent of the advice of the council of ministers.
