SC reserves judgement on PIL seeking anti-torture law; fulfilment of international commitments can’t be subject of petition, bench says

The Supreme Court reserved the judgement on a petition seeking direction regarding the delay in defining and enacting a law in connection with torture

FP Staff February 14, 2019 19:23:29 IST
SC reserves judgement on PIL seeking anti-torture law; fulfilment of international commitments can’t be subject of petition, bench says
  • SC reserved its judgement on a petition seeking direction regarding the delay in defining and enacting a law in connection with torture

  • The petitioner sought that SC take onus of enactment of the law as governments have failed to do the same

  • The PIL also sought to empower agencies like the NHRC with capabilities to implement its orders

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgement on a petition seeking direction regarding the delay in defining and enacting a law in connection with torture in accordance with the United Nations' Convention Against Torture, of which India is a signatory.

The petition was filed by advocate and former law minister Ashwini Kumar, who sought that the apex court take onus of enactment of the law as governments have failed to do the same.

SC reserves judgement on PIL seeking antitorture law fulfilment of international commitments cant be subject of petition bench says

File image of the Supreme Court of India. AP

A three-judge bench, comprising of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Dinesh Maheswari and Sanjiv Khanna, reserved the judgement, stating that fulfilment of international commitments cannot be a subject of the petition. The PIL asked the court to enact a law for witness protection in accordance with international conventions.

On Wednesday, SC had accorded a day-long hearing to the PIL which sought the formation of the law since India was a signatory to the United Nations' Convention on Torture. Miffed by Kumar’s statement about the court not giving time to this case, the bench told Kumar that while the apex court hears his PIL, he will have to deal with grievances of "1.3 billion people which is half of the population of the world".

The former law minister said that India is a signatory of the United Nations' Convention Against Torture since 1997. He also pointed that out five persons are killed every day in custody in India and that only seven countries are yet to frame it.

The PIL was filed by Kumar in 2016 and was disposed of in November 2017. Kumar told the apex court that no steps had been taken to implement the Prevention of Torture Bill 2010 even after it was passed by the Lok Sabha on 6 May, 2010 and recommended by a Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha of which he had been the chairman.

Earlier, the apex court had directed chief secretaries of all state governments to give their feedback on the Centre's draft law to prevent custodial torture and inhuman treatment within a period of three weeks.

Kumar’s PIL also sought to empower agencies like the National Human Rights Commission with capabilities to implement its orders.

(With inputs from agencies)

Updated Date:

also read

Powers under preventive detention law 'exceptional', cannot be exercised in routine manner, says SC
India

Powers under preventive detention law 'exceptional', cannot be exercised in routine manner, says SC

The apex court observation came as it set aside the October last year order of detention of two persons in Telangana

Prophet row: Ex-bureaucrats seek Supreme Court's intervention to check 'bulldozing' in UP
India

Prophet row: Ex-bureaucrats seek Supreme Court's intervention to check 'bulldozing' in UP

The BJP on 5 June suspended its national spokesperson Nupur Sharma and expelled its Delhi media head Naveen Kumar Jindal after their controversial remarks against the Prophet

Probe against Hemant Soren: No interim order from Supreme Court on Jharkhand govt appeal challenging High Court order
India

Probe against Hemant Soren: No interim order from Supreme Court on Jharkhand govt appeal challenging High Court order

Appearing for the state government, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said the case against the chief minister was a politically motivated petition to destabilise the government