M A I N   N E W S

House panel rewrites torture Bill
Aditi Tandon/TNS

REDRAFTED BILL Torture definition enlarged to include severe physical harm and mental agony, sexual assault, children’s torture Complaints can be filed within 2 years; onus to prove intention of torture not on victim; accused must prove innocence Prior sanction must to prosecute accused govt officer; if it doesn’t come in 3 months, it’ll be deemed as given Public servants in all state, central institutions, including schools, colleges, covered Death or life sentence for custodial death from torture; minimum punishment of 3 yrs ; minimum fine of Rs 1 lakh proposed Guideline for compensation of victims’, families (in case of death) proposed Law applies to entire India; will prevail in case of conflict with existing laws Once passed, it will enable India to ratify UN Convention against Torture. India adopted the Convention 13 years ago but could not sign for want of domestic law UN Convention was framed way back in 1975. India took 22 years to adopt it

New Delhi, December 7
Government servants, including police officials, found inflicting physical harm or mental trauma on any person or threatening to do so could face criminal action for torture if the government accepts the amendments suggested to the pending Prevention of Torture Bill 2010 by a select committee of the Rajya Sabha today.

Rejecting the old draft law which the Lok Sabha passed without debate on May 6 this year, the Select Committee today literally rewrote the law to “humanise it” and conform it to the provisions of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Home Minister P. Chidambaram had introduced the Bill in the Lok Sabha on April 26 to enable India to ratify the Convention it adopted in 1997 but couldn’t sign for want of a domestic law.

The House of Elders blocked the draft, forcing the government to refer it to a 13-member committee which slammed its narrow definition of torture (grievous hurt, danger to life, limb and health) and the requirement for victims to prove that the accused had tortured him intentionally.

The Select Committee in its report to Parliament today has shifted the onus on public servants to prove that they didn’t torture the victim “intentionally”; enlarged the definition of torture to include mental trauma, sexual harassment, rape, threat of rape, offences on body as defined by the IPC and torture of children in all forms; recommended life or death sentence for death due to torture in custody; mandated three-year minimum imprisonment and Rs 1 lakh minimum fine for torture; and made states duty bound to protect victims and witnesses.

“This is a victim-centric law which reaffirms India’s overarching commitment to human rights,” Committee chairperson Ashwani Kumar today said introducing the draft recommendations. The report made major improvements over the old draft -- spelled out an enlarged definition of public servants to include officials of Central and state government companies, even educational institutions (not just those mentioned in Section 21 of the IPC). “This is to protect children and students from torture in schools and colleges,” said Kumar.

On prosecution, though the Committee has retained the requirement of prior sanction as in the old law, it has said if such sanction doesn’t come in three months, it would be deemed to have been given. Reasons for decline must be recorded in writing to enable victims to challenge them in courts if they want, the Committee suggests. “We retained the sanction requirement to protect honest officers from frivolous complaints,” Kumar clarified.

Importantly, the panel recommends no officer should be allowed to use as defence the fact that he tortured someone under command of a superior, during war or emergency.

Also while the old Bill was silent on minimum punishment, fine and custodial deaths, the new version provides major deterrents and guidelines to compensate victims in accordance to their injury and financial status. Victims can authorise representatives to file complaints if they can’t themselves do so, it suggests.

A lacuna that persists in the law relates to investigation of torture complaints. Though Kumar claims impartiality would be ensured as they have barred inquiries by immediate superiors and advocated the same by an independent department, concerns on fairness remain. Most UN Convention ratifying nations — France, Germany, the UK — refer such complaints to independent bodies free of the government. But Committee members, including the CPM’s Brinda Karat rules out fears, saying: “This report makes recommendations the government was not ready to accept. It ensures effective prevention of custodial deaths, torture of women and children.”

The Union Cabinet would now have to approve these recommendations and bring a new law in the Budget session of Parliament next year before India can ratify the UN treaty which Pakistan did a while ago.