ParliamentThe Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010Anirudh- August 12, 2010The Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on April 26, 2010, and was passed by the Lok Sabha on May 6 (SeeBill Summary here).  The Bill was not referred to a Standing Committee of Parliament.  The Bill has been introduced to allow India to ratify the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.  The Convention against Torture requires member countries to bring their domestic legislation in conformity with the provisions of the Convention.  The main features of the Bill, and the issues are highlighted below (For the PRS Legislative Brief on the Bill,click here).Main features of the Torture BillFeaturesExplanationDefinition of ‘torture’A public servant or any person with a public servant’s  consent commits torture if all three conditions are met:An act results in (i) Grievous hurt to any person  (Grievous hurt as defined in the Indian Penal Code - includes damage to limbs or organs); or (ii) danger to life, limb or health (mental pr physical) of any person, andThe act is done intentionally, andThe act is done with the purpose of getting information or a confession.When is torture punishable?When it is committed for gaining a confession or other information for detecting an offence, andThe torture is committed on certain grounds such as religion, race, language, caste, or ‘any other ground’.Conditions under which courts can admit complaintsThe complaint has to be made within six months of the torture having been committed.The approval of the central or state government appointing the accused public servant has been taken.The definition of tortureThe definition of torture raises the following issues:It is inconsistent with the definition of torture in the Convention against Torture which India seeks to ratify;It does not include many acts amounting to torture which are punishable under the Indian Penal Code;It adds a requirement of proving the intention of the accused person to commit torture.  Current provisions in the IPC do not have this requirement.Grievous hurt does not include mental suffering or pain.Dilution of existing laws on tortureThe Bill makes it difficult for those accused of torture to be tried.  This is because (a) complaints against acts of torture have to be made within six months, and (b) the previous sanction of the appropriate government has to be sought before a court can entertain a complaint.Relevant provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Bill.SubjectCriminal Procedure CodeBillRequirement of government sanctionSanction needed if (a) a public servant is not removable except with the sanction of the appropriate government, and (b) the public servant was acting in the course of his duties.Prior sanction of the appropriate government needed in all cases.Time limits for filing complaintsTime-limits exist for offences punishable with maximum imprisonment of up to three years. No time limits for offences which are punishable with imprisonment of more than three years.There is a time-limit though torture is punishable with maximum imprisonment of up to ten years.  Complaints have to be filed within six months.Sources: Sections 197 and 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; PRS.Independent authority to investigate complaintsThere is no independent mechanism/ authority to investigate complaints of torture. The investigating agency in most cases of torture would be the police.  In many cases, personnel of the police would also be  alleged to have committed torture.  In such cases, the effectiveness of investigations in incidents of torture will be affected.Independent authorities in other countries to investigate incidents of torture.CountryAuthority/ InstitutionFranceComptroller General of the places of deprivation of libertyGermanyThe Federal Agency for the Prevention of TortureNew ZealandHuman Rights Commission, Police Complaints Authority, Children’s CommissionerUnited Kingdom18 different organisations, including Independent Monitoring Board, Independent Custody Visiting Associations, etc.Sources: National Preventive Mechanisms, UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture; PRS.Police Personnel sent for trials under existing laws, and convictionsParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»
ParliamentThe Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010Anirudh- August 12, 2010