These incidents demonstrate the need for India to enact a comprehensive anti-torture law in order to uphold its international commitments and fortify its legal system

Human Rights Concerns and Extradition Cases: Sanjay Bhandari's case: The U.K. High Court denied Bhandari's extradition, citing a real risk of torture in Indian jails. The decision was influenced by India's refusal to ratify the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT).

The case of Tahawwur Rana: Rana, who is suspected of being involved in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, cited the U.K. ruling in his appeal against extradition to the U.S. Supreme Court. Similar concerns about India's human rights record and lack of anti-torture laws are being exploited by other fugitives.

India has a long history of supporting international human rights conventions, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the United Nations Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1976).

Despite these promises, autocratic countries like Brunei, Sudan, and Angola have not ratified UNCAT, including India.

Since Articles 51(c) and 253 of the Indian Constitution mandate adherence to international agreements, India's non-ratification is morally and legally contradictory.

Legislative and judicial inaction:

Parliamentary and legislative recommendations:

The Rajya Sabha Select Committee proposed a comprehensive law that would outlaw torture in 2010. In its 273rd Report (2017), the Law Commission of India introduced a draft law on the subject.

In Jeet S. Bisht (2007), the Court stated that the theory of separation of powers allows for the use of methods to alert an institution to its excesses or shortcomings in performing its duties.

In Sharaya Bano (2017), the Court held that constitutional rights could be jeopardized by the ambivalence, tardiness, or indifference of other state organs.

Effects of the Court's hesitation: It violates international judicial standards, which highlight how the absence of legislation may endanger the protection of human rights and legal certainty.

Implications for India's Democratic Credibility:

The extradition cases raise questions about India's commitment to democratic values and human rights. The absence of an anti-torture law, which allows fugitives to evade punishment, undermines India's extradition efforts.

India's continued inaction on the subject of torture runs counter to its democratic ideals and constitutional commitments. The lessons learned from cases like Guantanamo Bay show that state-sanctioned torture erodes a nation's moral standing and soft power.

Important steps in upholding India's democratic values and strengthening its legal standing as it aspires to be a global leader include passing an anti-torture law and ratifying UNCAT.