Today happens to be the 32^nd anniversary of the
proclamation of the Emergency - an occasion to
hang our heads in shame over the violation of
human rights during that 19-month period. June 26
is an embarrassment to India for another reason.

The UN Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (UNCAT) came into force on June 26,
1987, but India is yet to ratify it.

The fact that various political forces have come
to power at the Centre over this period shows the
general unconcern for human rights.

Torture is defined under Article 1 of UNCAT to
mean any act by which severe pain or suffering,
whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person with a view to obtaining
information or a confession.

Article 2 (2), of UNCAT mandates that "No
exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a
state of war or a threat of war, internal
political instability or any other public
emergency, may be invoked as a justification of
torture".

Article 17 provides for the establishment of a committee against torture.

Each ratifying state is to submit its report to
the committee, which is authorised to make any
comments in its annual report and give
suggestions.

The Supreme Court said in D K Basu (1997) that
custodial violence, including torture and death
in the lock-ups, strikes a blow at the rule of
law. “Custodial torture” is a naked violation of
human dignity.

How do we explain the indifference of Indian
political parties to human rights? The police and
security forces have convinced their political
masters that if UNCAT were to be ratified, they
cannot resort to torture, which would impede
crime detection.

This approach is seriously flawed. Torture and
death in custody have assumed alarming
proportions as to affect credibility of the rule
of law and the administration of the criminal
justice system.

While ratification of UNCAT will not
automatically abolish the use of torture, a
machinery that oversees the infractions of law
will have an impact.

In 1976, at the height of terrorism in Northern
Ireland, the European Commission of Human Rights
ruled that the practice of depriving suspects of
sleep constituted torture and inhuman treatment.
UK ratified the treaty in 1988.

In 1996, the European Court of Human Rights was
confronted with a situation of whether an alleged
criminal should be returned by a foreign country
to the criminal’s own country if he was likely to
be tortured as a result. It responded: "The Court
is well aware of the immense difficulties faced
by states in modern times in protecting their
communities from terrorist violence.

However, even in these circumstances, the
convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
irrespective of the victim’s conduct..."

In 2005, the House of Lords (UK) in a judgment
has taken the view that UNCAT represented a
universal consensus on international law.

In the context of inhuman treatment at Abu Ghraib
prison and Guantanamo Bay, the US could not
justify its behaviour by invoking the post 9/11
situation and conceded that the detenus will be
governed by the Geneva Convention.

The US had ratified the Convention in 1994.

According to the National Human Rights
Commission’s 2004-05 annual report, there were
1,493 custodial deaths including 136 deaths in
police custody and 1,357 deaths in judicial
custody during 2004-05.

In 2005, the Union government established an
inter-ministerial group consisting of the
Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Home
affairs and the Ministry of Law and Justice on
the question of early ratification of the UNCAT.

It has not made any recommendations so far. The
Centre has reportedly drafted a Bill and views of
the NHRC have been sought. But nothing has been
made public.

India has also refused to extend an invitation to
the special rapporteur on torture who applied for
an invitation in 1993. In the neighbourhood,
Pakistan, Nepal, China and Sri Lanka had invited
the special rapporteur.

Will India change by June 26 next year?