Context:

• The recent ruling by the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in London, denying the extradition of fugitive Sanjay Bhandari, and the ongoing appeal by Tahawwur Rana in the U.S. Supreme Court, highlight critical legal and human rights concerns.
• These cases underscore the need for India to enact a comprehensive anti-torture law to strengthen its legal framework and uphold its international commitments.

Extradition Cases and Human Rights Concerns:

• Sanjay Bhandari’s case:
  • The U.K. High Court ruled against Bhandari’s extradition, citing a real risk of custodial torture in Indian jails.
  • The decision was influenced by India's failure to ratify the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT).
• Tahawwur Rana’s case:
  • Rana, accused of involvement in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, has cited the U.K. ruling in his U.S. Supreme Court appeal against extradition.
  • Similar concerns over India’s human rights record and lack of anti-torture laws are being leveraged by other fugitives.

India’s Ambiguous Stand on UNCAT:

• India has historically supported international human rights conventions, including:
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976)
• Despite these commitments, India has not ratified UNCAT, placing it alongside dictatorial regimes such as Angola, Brunei, and Sudan.
• Articles 51(c) and 253 of the Indian Constitution mandate adherences to international treaties, making India’s non-ratification legally and morally inconsistent.

Judicial and Legislative Inaction:

• Parliamentary and legal recommendations:
  • The Rajya Sabha Select Committee (2010) recommended a comprehensive anti-torture law.
  • The Law Commission of India, in its 273rd Report (2017), provided a draft law on the subject.
  • The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has consistently advocated for standalone anti-torture legislation.
• Contradictions in judicial interpretation:
  • In an expansive interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution,
    • The Supreme Court of India, in landmark rulings such as D.K. Basu (1997), K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), and Romila Thapar (2018), have emphasized the right to dignity and privacy.
  • However, in Ashwani Kumar (2019), the Court refrained from compelling the government to legislate on the issue.
    • This is despite its several pronouncements suggesting suitable laws on different subjects (Tehseen Poonawalla (2018), Ranveer Allahabadia (2025), etc).
  • In Jeet S. Bisht (2007), the Court declared that the doctrine of separation of powers allows methods to be used to communicate to an institution either its shortcomings or excesses in discharging its duties.
  • In Sharaya Bano (2017), the Court held that constitutional rights can be defeated through inaction, indifference, or ambivalence on the part of other organs of the State
• Impact of the Court’s reluctance: It contradicts international judicial principles, which stress that the absence of legislation can undermine legal certainty and human rights protection.

Implications for India’s Democratic Credibility:

• The extradition cases raise fundamental questions about India’s commitment to democratic values and human rights.
• The absence of an anti-torture law weakens India’s extradition requests, allowing fugitives to evade justice.
• Failure to enact such a law reflects political inertia and undermines India’s credibility as a human rights defender.

Conclusion - The Urgency for Legal Reform:

• India’s continued failure to legislate against torture contradicts its democratic ethos and constitutional commitments.
• The lessons from cases like Guantanamo Bay reinforce that state-sanctioned torture erodes a nation’s moral standing and soft power.
• As India aspires to global leadership, enacting an anti-torture law and ratifying UNCAT are essential steps toward upholding its democratic values and reinforcing its legal credibility.