The Prevention of Torture Bill: an affront to civil liberties?

In the late hours of the 6th May the Prevention of Torture Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha.

Eventhough Kaul and Shakder’s Manual of Practice and Procedure in Parliament, says hourly statements of the number of MPs sitting in the House is required to be published in the bulletin, this practice is routinely flouted. Consequently, we do not know who was in House when the Bill was debated, or even if it made the quorum requirements.

Not a single member from the main opposition party-the BJP spoke on the Bill. Similarly, RJD, BSP, CPI, NCP, NC, Shiv Sena, did not say anything on the Bill.

The apparent lack of a serious debate of the Bill coupled with the fact that we do not know how many people were in the House to hear the debate suggests that the Bill has not been scrutinised thoroughly enough.

This lack of scrutiny is particularly pertinent when considering Section 3 of the Bill. The Bill can be accessed here http://prsindia.org/uploads/media/Torture/prevention%20of%20torture%20bill%202010.pdf

The proviso in section 3 seems to curb our civil liberties and human rights in two fundamental ways:

1. It seems to justify the death penalty, and
2. It seems to condone the use of force to maintain law and order when facing unlawful assemblies.

One potential option is to lobby MPs to refer the Bill to a Select Committee of the Rajy Sabha (and not a Standing committee which is a joint committee). This could provide the opportunity to form an informed critique of the Bill.

Please see Section 3 and its proviso below:
Whoever, being a public servant or being abetted by a public servant or with the consent or acquiescence of a public servant, intentionally does any act for the purposes to obtain from him or a third person such information or a confession which causes,—

(i) grievous hurt to any person; or

(ii) danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of any person, is said to inflict torture:”
The proviso reads as follows:
“Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to any pain, hurt or danger as aforementioned caused by any act, which is inflicted in accordance with any procedure established by law or justified by law.”

Is the death penalty ever justifiable?

The recent decision to execute Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab, the sole surviving perpetrator of the Mumbai atrocities, has come under fire from many leading human rights organisations.

The heinous nature of the crimes is in no doubt, however, there are serious question marks regarding the morality and efficacy of the punishment. For example, how will death deter other potential terrorists, whose actions are in themselves suicide missions?

Matthews Philip, Executive Director of SICHREM, says that “capital punishment is a grave violation against a person’s right to life, a right that even criminals have’.

Similarly, V Lakshmi Narayana a human rights activist with the People’s Union for Civil Liberty (PUCL) asserted that “capital punishment shouldn’t exist in a democracy”.

Moreover, R Manohar head of the Programme unit at SICHREM, has been writing letters pleading for clemency, arguing that while “punishment needs to exist” he is “against the taking of a life, which no one has the right to do.”

These issues have been further discussed in the print media and below is a following example of such discussion:

 

DNA News Article Tuesday May 4-Capital Punishment is no solution argue human rights activists