Answer

The United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) aims to prevent inhumane treatment globally, yet India remains among the few countries yet to ratify it. The Common Cause-CSDS report highlights persistent custodial violence, underscoring the urgent need for legal safeguards. According to NCRB, 75 custodial deaths were reported in 2022, reinforcing concerns over accountability and human rights violations.

Significance of Ratifying UNCAT

• Global Legal Commitment: Ratifying UNCAT will make India legally bound to international human rights standards, ensuring accountability in cases of custodial torture and police brutality.
  For example: The UK ratified UNCAT in 1988, leading to stringent anti-torture laws like the Criminal Justice Act, 1988, criminalizing torture under all circumstances.
• Enhancing Police Accountability: UNCAT mandates independent oversight mechanisms, which can prevent police impunity and ensure cases of custodial violence are investigated fairly.
• Strengthening Judicial Oversight: Ratification would pressure Indian magistrates to ensure detainees are presented promptly and prevent abuse in custody.
  For example: In DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for arrest procedures, yet violations persist due to weak enforcement.
• Aligning with Democratic Values: Being a constitutional democracy, India must uphold fundamental rights like Article 21 (Right to Life) and ensure freedom from torture.
• Boosting India’s International Image: Ratifying UNCAT would strengthen India’s human rights credentials, counter criticisms, and improve diplomatic leverage in global forums.

Reasons why Domestic Legal Provisions are not Sufficient

• Absence of a Clear Definition: Indian law lacks a specific definition of torture, allowing varied interpretations and loopholes in legal proceedings.
• Low Conviction Rates: Despite laws like Section 330 & 331 of IPC, convictions for custodial torture remain near zero, indicating weak enforcement.
• Weak Oversight Mechanisms: Agencies like the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) lack enforcement powers, often acting as a toothless watchdog.
• Political and Administrative Pressure: Police face pressure from political leaders to extract confessions through third-degree methods, undermining judicial safeguards.
  For example: In the Vachathi Case (Tamil Nadu, 1992), 18 tribal women were raped and tortured by police; justice came after 31 years due to political interference.
• Judicial Passivity in Custodial Cases: Magistrates rarely question detainees about torture, failing to uphold Section 167 of CrPC, which mandates judicial oversight.
  For example: A study by Common Cause-CSDS (2024) found magistrates often acted as “silent spectators,” not recording signs of custodial abuse.

Way Ahead: Necessitating a Dedicated Anti-Torture Law

• Enact a Comprehensive Anti-Torture Law: A law criminalizing torture with clear definitions, stringent punishments, and protection for whistleblowers is essential.
• Mandatory Forensic Medical Examinations: All detainees should undergo forensic medical exams by qualified experts, not general practitioners.
  For example: In Sri Lanka, post-UNCAT ratification, the Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) system ensured proper medical documentation of custodial torture cases.
• Strengthening Judicial Oversight: Magistrates must be legally obligated to verify detainees’ conditions before approving police remand.
• Independent Investigation Authority: A national-level independent torture investigation commission should be established to handle complaints against police.
  For example: In South Africa, the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) investigates torture cases, leading to police convictions.
• Police Training in Ethical Interrogation: Officers must be trained in evidence-based interrogation techniques to replace coercive methods.
  For example: The UK Police & Criminal Evidence Act (1984) introduced PACE interviews, reducing torture cases through scientific questioning techniques.

Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. While existing laws offer protection, systemic reforms, independent oversight, and accountability are crucial. Implementing the Supreme Court’s Prakash Singh guidelines like accountability, and transparent investigations, can create a zero-tolerance culture against custodial torture. promoting a just and humane society.

DOWNLOAD PDF