Extradition Cases and Torture Concerns

The recent court rulings in both the UK and the US regarding the extradition cases of Sanjay Bhandari and Tahawwur Rana highlight significant judicial developments and underscore the need for India to address its stance on torture and human rights.

Implications of the Rulings

• The UK High Court denied Bhandari's extradition to India, citing risks of custodial torture and India's non-ratification of the UN Convention against Torture (UNCAT).
• Rana's appeal in the US Supreme Court also references these concerns, challenging his extradition to India for alleged involvement in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.

India's Position on Torture

• Despite initiating early declarations against torture and ratifying other international treaties, India's refusal to ratify the UNCAT remains puzzling.
• Articles 51(c) and 253 of the Indian Constitution mandate respect for international treaties, yet India is grouped with non-ratifying countries like Angola and Sudan.

Calls for Anti-Torture Legislation

• In 2010, the Rajya Sabha Select Committee recommended comprehensive anti-torture legislation, a sentiment echoed by the Law Commission in its 273rd Report (2017) and the Human Rights Commission of India.
• The Supreme Court has recognized torture as an infringement on the right to dignity and privacy, but action towards legislation remains lacking.

Judicial and Governmental Role

• The Supreme Court has been urged to facilitate legislation, but in cases like Ashwani Kumar (2019), it did not push the government to act.
• There is a growing concern over the Court's inaction, as constitutional rights could be undermined by governmental indifference.

Conclusion

India's ongoing failure to enact anti-torture laws raises questions about its commitment to human rights and democratic values. The extradition cases serve as a critical reminder for India to align its policies with international standards and uphold its constitutional responsibilities.