India’s Extradition Challenges and Anti-Torture Law Absence

Source: The post India’s Extradition Challenges and Anti-Torture Law Absence has been created, based on the article “Torture shadows India’s justice system” published in “The Hindu” on 20 March 2025. India’s Extradition Challenges and Anti-Torture Law Absence.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2- Governance- criminal Justice system

Context: The King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in London recently denied India’s extradition request for Sanjay Bhandari, citing the risk of custodial torture. Similarly, in the U.S., Tahawwur Rana has appealed to the Supreme Court against his extradition, using similar arguments. These cases highlight India’s failure to enact an anti-torture law, impacting its international reputation and legal credibility.

Extradition Cases and the Issue of Torture

1. Sanjay Bhandari, wanted in India for tax evasion and money laundering, successfully defended against extradition in the U.K. due to concerns over custodial torture in Indian prisons.
2. Tahawwur Rana, accused of involvement in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, has used the U.K. judgment to challenge his extradition in the U.S.
3. Several other fugitives have used similar arguments, revealing a legal gap that weakens India’s ability to prosecute criminals.

India’s International and Constitutional Obligations

1. International Treaties: India played a key role in UN General Assembly’s Resolution 32/64 against torture but has not ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT).
2. Human Rights Commitments: India has ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976).
3. Constitutional Mandates: Articles 51(c) and 253 mandate respect for international treaties.
4. Judicial Interpretations: Supreme Court rulings (e.g., D.K. Basu (1997), Puttaswamy (2017)) uphold protection against torture as part of Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity).

Judicial and Legislative Inaction

1. A Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha (2010) and the Law Commission (273rd Report, 2017) recommended an anti-torture law.
2. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has also advocated for standalone legislation against torture.
3. The Supreme Court, despite recognizing custodial torture as unconstitutional, has not pushed the government to enact an anti-torture law (Ashwani Kumar case, 2019).
4. The failure to legislate goes against principles of legal certainty and judicial responsibility, as recognized by international judicial bodies.

For detailed information on India‘s baby step to prevent custodial tortures read this article here

Implications of the Absence of an Anti-Torture Law

1. Weakens Extradition Requests: India’s failure to address torture weakens its legal system and affects its ability to bring fugitives to justice.
2. Harms Democracy’s Soft Power: The Guantanamo Bay case showed how torture damages a democracy’s global standing and soft power.
3. Damages India’s Global Image: India’s failure to enact an anti-torture law undermines its credibility as a democracy and places it alongside countries that do not uphold human rights, such as Sudan and Angola.,
4. Inaction on torture laws reflects the failure of Indian politics to prioritize fundamental human rights.

Conclusion

The extradition rulings expose India’s weak legal framework on custodial torture, affecting its credibility in international courts. To uphold its democratic values, India must ratify UNCAT and enact a strong anti-torture law. Otherwise, its position as a moral leader and defender of human rights will remain compromised.

Question for practice:

Evaluate how the absence of an anti-torture law in India impacts its extradition requests and international legal credibility.