Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Dr. Ashwani Kumar, a senior advocate and former Law Minister, filed a miscellaneous application in a disposed writ petition seeking a direction from the Supreme Court to the Union of India to enact a standalone comprehensive legislation against custodial torture based on the UN Convention against Torture. The original writ petition had been disposed of in 2017 on the statement of the Attorney General that the Law Commission's recommendations were under consideration. The applicant argued that custodial torture violates Article 21 of the Constitution, and that despite India signing the UN Convention in 1997, no legislation had been enacted. He relied on precedents where the Court had issued directions for legislation, such as in Vishaka (sexual harassment) and Tehseen Poonawalla (mob lynching). The Union of India opposed the prayer, stating that a draft legislation was under consideration and that directing Parliament to legislate would violate the separation of powers. The Court, after hearing the applicant, the Attorney General, and amicus curiae, held that it cannot direct Parliament to enact a law, as law-making is the exclusive domain of the legislature under the constitutional scheme. The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the need for such legislation, but only on the limited question of whether it could issue a direction to Parliament. The application was dismissed, with the Court observing that the existing legal framework and judicial decisions provide remedies for custodial torture.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Separation of Powers - Basic Structure - Doctrine of Separation of Powers - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 141, 142 - The Court held that directing Parliament to enact a law would violate the doctrine of separation of powers, a basic feature of the Constitution. The Court cannot issue a direction to Parliament to legislate in a particular manner, as law-making is the exclusive domain of the legislature. (Paras 8-10) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Life - Custodial Torture - Article 21 - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21 - The Court acknowledged that custodial torture violates Article 21 and is a crime against humanity, but held that existing municipal laws and judicial precedents provide remedies. The Court cannot compel Parliament to enact a new law based on the UN Convention. (Paras 4, 10) C) Constitutional Law - International Law - Domestic Implementation - Articles 51(c) and 253 - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 51(c), 253 - While India has signed the UN Convention against Torture, it has not ratified it. The Court noted the constitutional imperative to align domestic laws with international obligations but held that the manner of implementation is for Parliament to decide. (Paras 2, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Supreme Court can direct Parliament to enact a standalone and comprehensive legislation against custodial torture based on the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Final Decision
The Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. The Court held that it cannot direct Parliament to enact a law, as law-making is the exclusive domain of the legislature under the constitutional scheme. The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the need for such legislation.
Law Points
- Separation of powers
- Basic structure of Constitution
- Judicial restraint
- Legislative domain
- Custodial torture
- Article 21
- Article 14
- Article 32
- Article 141
- Article 142
- Article 51(c)
- Article 253
- UN Convention against Torture
- Doctrine of separation of powers
