The Hindu Editorial Analysis- 20th March 2025 | Current Affairs & Hindu Analysis: Daily, Weekly & Monthly - UPSC PDF Download

Torture shadows India’s justice system

Why in News?

• A London high court recently denied India’s extradition request for Sanjay Bhandari, who is accused of tax evasion and money laundering.
• The court ruled against the extradition on the basis that Bhandari could face a genuine risk of custodial torture in Indian prisons.

Other Judicial Rulings on Extradition

• In a separate case in the United States, an individual implicated in a significant terrorist attack in India is contesting extradition, raising similar concerns about the risk of torture.
• These judicial decisions underscore a critical legal challenge impacting various extradition cases involving suspects sought by India.

India’s Position on Anti-Torture Laws

• India, while promoting anti-torture measures globally, has not ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT).
• The Indian Constitution mandates adherence to international treaties, but the country has yet to implement a comprehensive law against torture.
• Notably, India is among the few democratic nations that have not ratified UNCAT, alongside countries with questionable human rights records.

United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT)

• Full Name: United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
• Adopted: December 10, 1984, by the United Nations General Assembly.
• Entered into Force: June 26, 1987.
• Objective: To prevent torture and inhuman treatment worldwide.
• Signatories: 83 countries.
• Ratifications: 173 countries (as of 2024).
• Key Provisions:
  • Prohibits torture under any circumstances.
  • Requires states to criminalize torture.
  • Obliges states to investigate and prosecute acts of torture.
  • Prohibits extradition to countries where torture is likely.
• India’s Status: Signed in 1997 but not ratified.

Parliamentary and Legal Recommendations

• In 2010, a parliamentary committee suggested the need for a law against torture, but no subsequent action was taken.
• The Law Commission of India, in its 273rd Report released in 2017, recommended a draft law to criminalize torture.
• The National Human Rights Commission has also advocated for the establishment of a standalone law addressing torture.

Judicial Stance on Torture and Legislative Inaction

• The Supreme Court of India has recognized torture as a breach of human dignity and privacy, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Various court rulings have emphasized the necessity for robust legal safeguards against torture.
• However, in 2019, the Supreme Court refrained from urging the government to formulate a specific anti-torture law, reflecting a degree of hesitation.
• This lack of proactive stance has weakened India’s legal framework aimed at ensuring human rights protections.

Implications for India’s International Reputation

• The non-ratification of UNCAT has been utilized by fugitives as a defense strategy in extradition cases, undermining India’s prosecutorial capabilities.
• Countries declining extradition requests from India often cite the potential risk of custodial torture as a justification for their decision.
• The absence of a comprehensive anti-torture law not only damages India’s democratic image but also its standing as a proponent of human rights.

Conclusion: The Urgent Need for Reform

• It is imperative for India to establish a robust anti-torture legislation to fulfill its constitutional and international responsibilities.
•  Addressing this issue is crucial to preserving India’s democratic integrity and legal reputation. 
•  Strengthening human rights safeguards will enhance India’s position on the global stage and reaffirm its commitment to justice and human dignity.

A delimitation red flag — the lessons from J&K, Assam

Why is it News?

• There are worries about the new delimitation of legislative constituencies in India.
• These worries include issues like regional imbalance, communal demarcation, and the risk of political polarization.

Need for a Balanced Delimitation Approach

• A practical approach suggests freezing the number of parliamentary seats while increasing the number of Assembly seats in States with high population growth.
• This would be a more democratic solution, as Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) directly serve the people at the local level, while Members of Parliament (MPs) focus on national policies.

Addressing the Power Imbalance

• Redistribution of Rajya Sabha Seats: There are concerns that delimitation may increase the imbalance of power between different regions of the country. One suggestion is to redistribute Rajya Sabha seats equally across the northern, central, eastern, western, and southern States.
• Zonal Councils: These regions already have zonal councils, which were created to address inter-state disputes but have been largely inactive. Reviving these councils could help address regional concerns more effectively.
• Strengthening the Inter-State Council: Critics argue that zonal councils were designed for state-level issues, while the Inter-State Council (which last met in 2016) was meant for resolving disputes between the Centre and States. Strengthening the Inter-State Council could help coordinate regional concerns with the central government more effectively.

Challenges from Recent Delimitation Exercises

1. Jammu and Kashmir Delimitation (2022)

• Imbalance in Representation: The delimitation added six seats to Jammu and one to the Kashmir valley, creating an imbalance where a vote in Jammu carried more weight than a vote in the valley.
• Lack of Administrative Logic: Several new constituencies were formed without considering administrative or geographic logic, leading to concerns about fairness.
• Communal Bias: The restructured constituencies raised concerns of communal bias, as most newly created seats had a majority from one religious community.
• Demographic Manipulation: Some constituencies were redrawn to alter their demographic composition, leading to disparities in population sizes across constituencies.

2. Assam Delimitation (2023)

• Elimination of Minority-Dominated Constituencies: The number of Assembly seats remained unchanged, but the reorganization led to the elimination of 10 constituencies with significant minority populations.
• Increase in Dominant Community Constituencies: The number of constituencies dominated by other communities increased, leading to concerns about fairness.
• Varying Population Sizes: The exercise resulted in constituencies with widely varying population sizes, raising questions about equitable representation.

Threats of Communal and Regional Polarisation

• Power Imbalance: The delimitation exercise in 2026 needs to address the power imbalance between different regions.
• Communal-Based Demarcation: There is a risk of demarcating constituencies based on religious criteria, which could disrupt the historical voting pattern where regional identity was more significant than religious identity.
• Influence on Southern States: The communal-based restructuring could influence elections in southern States, where such a shift could have unforeseen impacts.
• Political Group Benefits: Past examples show that specific political groups in border States have benefited from such restructuring, which could lead to political instability.

Dangers of a Flawed Delimitation Process

• Shift in Political Power:. population-based delimitation could shift political power towards larger northern States, marginalizing smaller States. 
• Communal Divisions:. restructuring based on religious demographics could create long-term communal divisions, threatening national unity. 
• Regional and Religious Divisions: Both factors could divide the country along regional and religious lines, weakening federalism and disrupting the pluralistic nature of democracy. 
• Impact on National Unity: The combined impact of these factors poses a serious threat to national unity and could destabilize the country.