Decode Civils CAShorts
Current affairs Open app
ExplainerPolityPrelimsGS2

UN Convention against Torture, and why India has not ratified it

By CAShorts DeskPublished Sources: UN Treaty Collection; Supreme Court of India; Law Commission of India; Rajya Sabha; PRS; NHRC; US DOJ; US Code (GPO); AP; Reuters; The Wire

Why in news: A US superseding indictment unsealed on 8 October 2026 charges Venezuela's former President Nicolas Maduro with conspiring to commit torture under 18 U.S.C. 2340A.

UN Convention against Torture, and why India has not ratified it
Illustration (AI-generated)

The UN Convention against Torture (1984) bars torture without exception, forbids sending anyone to likely torture and obliges parties to criminalise it. India signed it on 14 October 1997 but has not ratified it. A US indictment unsealed on 8 October 2026 charges Venezuela's former President Nicolas Maduro with torture conspiracy under the 1994 US law implementing it.

Syllabus: Prelims · Polity & Governance; GS2 · Governance & e-Governance; GS2 · Groupings & Agreements

Why this matters for UPSC

GS2 human rights and treaties: Prelims can ask what the Convention against Torture defines and bans, how its Committee against Torture works and India's signature; GS2 Mains, why India has not ratified it and how Article 21 checks custodial torture.

In short

The UN Convention against Torture (1984) makes the torture ban absolute and binds parties to prevent, criminalise and prosecute it; India signed in 1997 but has not ratified.

India's path on the ConventionSignature, 19972010 BillLaw Commission, 2017Supreme Court, 2019

A Convention-standard law under Article 253, then ratification, would turn Article 21's guarantee into enforceable accountability for custodial torture.

Why it matters

For someone picked up by the police, the gap is practical. Without a dedicated law, a victim of custodial torture must fit the abuse into general offences of hurt, may need the government's sanction before the officer can be prosecuted, and must turn to a writ petition or a civil suit for compensation. A law of the kind the Law Commission drafted would name torture as a crime, let a court presume that injuries suffered in police custody were caused by the police, and make the State pay the victim. Ratification, the Law Commission adds, would ease the difficulty of securing the extradition of fugitives to India. The larger question is how a democracy holds its own police to account without weakening investigation.

Prelims pointers

  • Article 1 of the Convention: torture is severe physical or mental pain, intentionally inflicted for a purpose such as confession or punishment, with official involvement; lawful sanctions excluded.
  • Article 2 of the Convention: no state of war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency or superior's order can justify torture.
  • Article 3 of the Convention (non-refoulement): no party may expel, return or extradite a person to a State where substantial grounds show a danger of torture.
  • Article 16 applies the duties to train, review, investigate and hear complaints to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment short of torture.
  • Committee against Torture (Article 17): ten experts elected by secret ballot of States parties for four years; under Article 19, parties report within one year, then every four years.
  • Optional Protocol (adopted 18 December 2002, in force 22 June 2006): the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture visits places of detention; parties must set up national preventive mechanisms.
  • 26 June, International Day in Support of Victims of Torture (General Assembly resolution 52/149 of 1997), marks the Convention's entry into force in 1987.
  • Article 253 of the Constitution: Parliament may legislate to implement any treaty, even on State List subjects such as police and prisons.

Practise a UPSC-style question

With reference to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, consider the following statements:

1. Its definition of torture covers severe pain inflicted by private persons with no public official's involvement or acquiescence.

2. Its definition of torture covers severe mental suffering as well as physical pain.

3. It bars a party from extraditing a person to a State where substantial grounds suggest a danger of torture.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. (a) 1 and 2 only
  2. (b) 2 and 3 only
  3. (c) 1 and 3 only
  4. (d) 1, 2 and 3
Show the answer

Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only

Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only. The Convention's torture always involves a public official, so statement 1 fails.

Statement 1: incorrect. Article 1 counts pain inflicted by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or person acting officially.

Statement 2: correct. Article 1 covers severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, intentionally inflicted for a purpose such as a confession.

Statement 3: correct. Article 3 bars expelling, returning (refouler) or extraditing a person where substantial grounds show a danger of torture.

Eliminate: Be surest of statement 1: the definition ties torture to an official, so purely private violence falls outside it. Out: (a), (c), (d).

Trap: Wrong scope. Statement 1 stretches the treaty's definition to private violence, while the Convention covers acts of officials or those acting with their consent or acquiescence.

Remember: Article 1 torture: severe physical or mental pain, intent, a purpose and an official's involvement.

More Explainers

All Explainers

More Polity current affairs