In February 2025, the High Court of Justice in London, King's Bench Division, rejected the extradition of Sanjay Bhandari who was facing money laundering and tax evasion charges on the grounds that custodial torture was a 'Commonplace' and a widespread 'Epidemic' and extraditing him will cause a breach of his 'Human Rights'. The question now arises, whether this statement by King's Division...
In February 2025, the High Court of Justice in London, King's Bench Division, rejected the extradition of Sanjay Bhandari who was facing money laundering and tax evasion charges on the grounds that custodial torture was a 'Commonplace' and a widespread 'Epidemic' and extraditing him will cause a breach of his 'Human Rights'. The question now arises, whether this statement by King's Division Bench is a conjecture on the part of bench and is portraying India in a bad light?
The answer to the above question is negative. The grounds on which the King's Bench Division rejected the extradition is a valid ground under Article 3 of United Nation Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (abbreviated as 'UNCAT'). Article 3 of UNCAT states that no State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
According to Annual Report on Torture 2019 of National Campaign against Torture,
Five custodial deaths happen every day in custody and majority of which happens under Police custody. The Supreme Court has time and time again, reiterated the fact that custodial violence, including torture and death in lock-ups, strikes a blow at the rule of law. The precious rights guaranteed by Article 21, i.e., The Right to Life cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials, detenus and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedures established by law.
The issue with our Law Enforcement Agency (abbreviated as “LEA”) is that the philosophy which our LEA operates is that of the utilitarian consequentialist philosophy of 'greatest amount of good for the greatest number'. In other words, the maintenance of law and order and delivery of justice is of prime importance, irrespective of how it is achieved which is highly objectionable. This philosophy is also celebrated by Indian public whenever a policeman beats up the villain.
It would be unfair to attribute all the blame on LEA. Police personnel are overburdened due to the chasm in police-public ratio. The said ratio stood at approximate 196 police personnel per lakh of population, that being the sanctioned one as according to the Government data in 2022. But the difference is much worse. The actual police personnel per lakh of population stands at mere 152 per lakh of population. The workload on police is immense and causes pressure and consequently, this pressure manifests in the form of torture.
Another reason that can be attributed to is that India has not ratified the UNCAT, though India is a signatory member of this convention. By ratifying the convention, it will essentially mean that Parliament would have to pass the Prevention of Torture bill. Though, it has been recommended to India by many countries to ratify the convention and India's decision to ratify it in 2017 was also welcomed by many countries but, as of June 2025, it has yet to do so.
In 2010, under UPA II's government, there was an attempt to pass the Prevention of Torture bill 2010. According to the bill, it defined torture as: an act by a public servant or by a person with acquiescence of a public servant, causes grievous hurt or danger to life, limb, or health (whether mental or physical). It proposed punishment of minimum 3 years which may be extended to 10 years and fine, for torture inflicted for purpose of extorting confession, or for punishing or on the ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground.
The Bill was introduced and passed by the Lok Sabha. It was referred to the Select committee comprising of13 members. However, lapsed with dissolution of 15th Lok Sabha in May 2014 as it was not passed by the Rajya Sabha. Although, 2010 attempt was not the only attempt towards ratifying the UN convention, but it was the most significant attempt.
Law commission's 273rd report released in 2017 suggested, among other things, payment of compensation for the torture suffered by the victim, whether physical or mental, keeping in mind about the socio-economic background of the victim, severity of torture exercised upon him, this also includes the mental agony suffered by the victim. The one of the most important thing Law Commission observed in the report was the tolerance of police atrocities, amounts to acceptance of systematic subversion and erosion of rule of law and that torture should not be a practice widely accepted by the society and instead it is not permissible whether it occurs during investigation or otherwise.
Therefore, the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997)[1], reiterated that a citizen does not 'shed' his fundamental rights the moment a policeman arrests him. Nor can it be said that the right to life of the citizen is put into 'abeyance' on his arrest. One of the orbiter dicta in D.K. Basu case, The Justices, Kuldip Singh and Dr A.S. Anand, JJ. observed that if the police functionaries of the government become law-breakers, then it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchy. No civilized nation can permit that to happen.
Views are personal.
Bibliography:
1. Annual Report on Torture 2019 of National Campaign against Torture
2. Lok Sabha Unstrarred Question No. 4485
3. Law commission's 273rd report
4. Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416
[1] Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416,