Definition of torture: 

There is no definition of torture in the current Indian laws.  According to

the draft Prevention of Torture Bill, 2017, any public servant or any third person authorised by
him indulges in an act of torture if they inflict on another person: (i) grievous hurt, (ii) severe
physical or mental pain, (iii) danger to life, limb, or health, or (iv)death for the purpose of
acquiring information or punishment.
Further the bill proposes 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 mentions that India is a signatory to United Nations Convention Against Torture (1975)
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. India signed the convention
on October 14, 1997 but remains one of nine countries who have not ratified it so far.
In 2010, after being passed from Lok Sabha, Bill reached Rajya Sabha, but they further referred
it to Rajya Sabha Select Committee for further consideration.
Committee provided for some suggestions such as expanding the definition of torture, torturing
women or children should have severe punishment, independent authority should be set up for
the investigation and to provide compensation to the victim. 
But after being passed from Lok Sabha with the suggested changes, it has not been passed by
Rajya Sabha.
In 2017, The Law Commission of India (Chaired by Dr. Justice B. S. Chauhan) submitted their
report on “Implementation of ‘UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and
Degrading Treatment or Punishment’ through legislation” to the Ministry of Law and Justice on
October 30, 2017.  Following a recommendation by the Supreme Court, the matter was referred
to the Law Commission in July 2017.  This recommendation was made as the Court was hearing
a case related to torture in death sentence.

Later, Law Commission said, "We are seriously considering the Prevention Against Torture Bill"
but before proposing the Act, there would be changes required in Indian Penal Code, Indian
Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Code and that's hard nut to crack.
Provisions under Constitution of India for persons in custody

Article 20(3) - provides for protection against self-incrimination.  The accused has a right to
maintain silence and not to disclose his defence before the trial.  It is well established that the
Right to Silence has been granted to the accused by Supreme Court in the case of Nandini
Sathpathy v. P.L.Dani,1and it was held that “no one can forcibly extract statements from the
accused, who has the right to keep silent during the course of investigation. By the
administration of these tests, deliberate access into one’s mind is being restored to, thereby
nullifying the validity and legitimacy of the Right to Silence. In 2010 The Supreme court made
brain mapping test, lie detector and narco-analysis test, as a violation of Article 20(3).
The scope of this immunity has, prima facie, been widened by our Supreme Court by interpreting
the word 'witness' to comprise both oral and documentary evidence, so that no person can be
forced to provide any kind of evidence which is reasonably likely to support a prosecution
against him. Such evidence must, however, be in the nature of a communication.
The prohibition is not attracted where any object or document is searched and seized from the
possession of the accused. For the same reason, the Clause does not bar the obtaining of thumb-
impression or specimen signature from him or the medical examination of the accused.2

Article 21 - provides that no person can be deprived of his life and liberty excerpt procedure
prescribed by law. This Article reminds us of one of the famous clauses of the Magna Carta:
"No man shall be taken or imprisoned, exiled, outlawed, or in any way destroyed
saved... by the law of the land."
It means that no member of the Executive shall be entitled to interfere with the liberty of a
citizen unless he can support his action by some provision of law. In short, no man can be
subjected to any physical coercion that does not admit of legal justification.
The Supreme Court has consistently reiterated that custodial torture violates right to life.
Personal freedom is secured by the judicial writ of habeas corpus [Arts. 32 and 226] by means of
which an arrested person may have himself brought before the Court and have the ground of his
imprisonment examined, and regain his freedom if the Court finds that there is no legal
justification for his imprisonment. The Court will also set the prisoner free where there is a law
1

2
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu, AIR 1961 SC 1808.
authorising the deprivation of liberty of a person but there has been no strict compliance with the
conditions imposed by the law. The Supreme Court has more than once observed that “those who
feel called upon to deprive other persons of their personal liberty in the discharge of what they
conceive to be their duty, must scrupulously observe the forms and rules of the law".3

Article 22 (1) & (2) - provide for protection against arbitrary arrest and detention. It prohibits
detention of any person in custody without being informed the grounds for his arrest nor he shall
be denied the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
When a person has been arrested under a law of preventive detention
(i) The Government is entitled to detain such person in custody only for three months. If it seeks
to detain the arrested person for more than 3 months, it must obtain a report from an Advisory
Board-who will examine the papers submitted by the Government and by the accused as to
whether the detention is justified.
(ii) The person so detained shall, as soon as may be, be informed of the grounds of his detention
excepting facts which the detaining authority considers to be against the public interest to
disclose. The detenu has the right to be supplied with copies of all documents, statements and
other materials relied upon on the ground of detention without delay.4
(iii) The person detained must have the right of making a representation against the order of
detention.
Any law which violates the conditions imposed by Art. 22, as stated above, is liable to be
declared invalid and an order of detention which violates any of these conditions will, similarly,
be invalidated by the Court, and the detenu shall forthwith be set free."

India Evidence Act

Section 24 - provides that any confession obtained by inducement, threat or promise from an
accused would not be relevant in criminal proceedings.

Section 25- provides that a confession made by an accused to police officer is not admissible in
evidence and cannot be brought on record by prosecution to obtain conviction.
3
Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974.
4
Thahira Haris v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 11 SCC 438.
Section 26 - provides that confession made by an accused while in police custody could not be
proved against him unless it is subjected to cross examination or judicial scrutiny

Section 27 - Recoveries are not permitted to be procured through torture.

CrPC

Sections 46(3) and 49 – a detenu who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life cannot be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his
escape.

Section 54 - extends safeguard against any infliction of custodial torture and violence by
providing for examination of arrested person by medical officer.

Section 176 - provides for compulsory magisterial inquiry on the death of the accused in police
custody

Section 358 - provides for compensation to persons groundlessly arrested.