Parliament panel finds fault with MHA for not finalising IPC amendments to tackle custodial torture

A Parliamentary panel has come down heavily on the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for not finalising amendments in Indian Penal Code to tackle custodial torture, an assurance it gave to the Parliament five years ago, saying it is "evasive" and lacks seriousness in dealing with the issue.

It said the MHA's response to the panel for the delay in realising the assurance given to Parliament was an "attempt to deflect and divert attention to technical and procedural aspects" after five years of pendency of the assurance given to Parliament and it reflected "non-seriousness".

According to statistics tabled by MHA in Rajya Sabha earlier this month, 5,569 people -- 348 in police custody and 5,221 in judicial custody -- had died in custody, though all of those cannot be branded as due to custodial torture.

The criticism of the MHA on the issue came in a report tabled by Rajya Sabha's Committee on Government Assurances tabled in the recently concluded Winter Session of the Parliament.

The panel headed by senior AIADMK MP A Navaneethakrishnan recommended that the MHA should take the issue seriously and expedite the legislation on the amendments to sections 330 and 331 of the IPC.

It made the remarks after looking at the implementation report submitted by the MHA on three questions raised on May 11, 2016 (starred question), November 30, 2016 and December 7, 2018 (unstarred question).

The questions raised included whether the government has prepared guidelines to prevent torture and inhuman treatment to individuals in custody, details of the framework, and the agreement of the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

The government had responded to the MPs who raised the questions, saying that a proposal to suitably amend the Section 330 and 331 of Indian Penal Code to define 'torture' and 'public servant' is under "active examination" of the MHA in consultation with other ministries.

In its implementation report, the MHA said that a "comprehensive legislation to amend the criminal laws is a complex and lengthy exercise given the spectrum of divergent views of stakeholders like state governments, etc".

It also said that the proposed amendments are "debated and deliberated intensely to arrive at a required consensus" and the entire procedure, therefore, is a "long drawn out one and no time limit can be fixed or given for this legislative process".

Not buying the argument over the delay in coming out with a legislation, the panel took a "very serious view" of the matter and said instead of addressing the issue of "such significant public importance in right earnest", the implementation report was an "attempt to deflect and divert attention to technical and procedural aspects".

"Surprisingly, such an evasive reply comes after almost five years of the pendency of the assurance which reflects non-seriousness of the Ministry towards the assurance. The Committee is of the view that the police are custodian of public order, safety and they are expected to be most accessible," it said. 

Check out DH's latest videos: