India’s continued refusal to ratify U.N. Convention Against Torture lacks substance

NHRC's radio silence on the absence of express definition of torture in Indian law and jurisprudence is deafening.

– – –

THE Working Group on the United Nations ('UN') Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review ('UPR') held its review of India on November 10. The delegation of India was headed by the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta. At its 16th meeting, held on November 16, the Working Group adopted the draft report on India.

Numerous recommendations made by India will be examined. India will provide responses in due time, but no later than the 52nd session of the Human Rights Council.

One recurring and important recommendation was to ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ('CAT'), as recommended by Montenegro, South Africa, Congo, Denmark, Eswatini, Fiji, France, Japan, Latvia, Mexico, Slovakia, Sweden, Pakistan, Benin, Estonia ,Republic of Moldova, Togo, Morocco, Niger, Senegal, Angola, Sudan, Ghana, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Ukraine, Bahamas, Chile and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The United States of America not only recommended that India ratify the CAT but also prosecute those responsible for human rights abuses.

In 2017, many countries welcomed India's decision to ratify the CAT during the third periodic review, which India had signed in 1997. India had made a similar commitment during the earlier second periodic review process in 2012, only to forget it before the ink was dry.

Earlier in 2005, the Advisory Council of Jurists ('ACJ'), the body of legal experts advising the Asia Pacific Forum of National Institutions submitted its study on the question of torture and the role of national human rights institutions.