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 
A Committee has been set up to examine appropriateness of procedures followed by the Department of Telecommunications in issuance of licences and allocation of spectrum during the period 2001-2009. The Committee will be chaired by retired Judge of the Supreme Court, Justice (Retd.) Shri Shivraj V. Patil. According to news reports the Committee is scheduled to submit its report by the first week of January 2011. The Terms of Reference (TOR) of the Committee have been listed as: 1. To study the circumstances and developments in the Telecom sector that led to the formulation of the New Telecom Policy 1999 and subsequently, introduction of 4th Cellular Telecom Mobile Service (CMTS) licence in 2001. 2. To examine the internal (intra-departmental) procedures adopted by DoT during the period 2001-2009 for: a. Issue of telecom access service licences, and b. Allocation of spectrum to all telecom access services licencees during the above period. 3. To examine whether these procedures were in accordance with existing policies and directions of DoT/Government. 4. To examine whether these procedures were followed consistently and if not, identify specific instances of: a. Deviation from laid down procedures; b. Inappropriate application of laid down procedures; c. Violation of underlying principles of laid down procedures. 5. To examine whether the procedures adopted were fair and transparent and were in keeping with the principles of natural justice and if not, identify the specific instances of lack of fairness and transparency. 6. To identify the deficiencies, if any, in the procedures as formulated and identify the public officials responsible for such deficiencies. 7. To identify the shortcomings and lapses, if any, in the implementation of the laid down procedures and identify the public officials responsible for such lapses. 8. To suggest remedial measures to avoid in future: a. Deficiencies in formulation of procedures; and b. Lapses in implementation of laid-down procedures.
