DR. ASHWANI KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

DR. ASHWANI KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

The Supreme Court cannot direct the legislature to enact a law or direct the executive to ratify the UN Convention against Torture, as such directions would violate the doctrine of separation of powers. The matter is under active consideration by the executive and Parliament, and judicial intervention is...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Petitioner: Dr. Ashwani Kumar; Respondent: Union of India and Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Miscellaneous Application Disposed
Outcome
Prayer for direction to Parliament to enact a law is rejected; miscellaneous application disposed.
Legal Topics
Custodial Torture, Separation of Powers, Right to Life, Judicial Review, Ratification of Treaties, Legislative Process
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Custodial Torture Separation of Powers Right to Life Judicial Review Ratification of Treaties +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 42 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Ashwani Kumar

Petitioner

Union of India and Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Miscellaneous Application Disposed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court should direct the Parliament to enact a law on custodial torture in conformity with the UN Convention.
  2. 2 Whether the Court can issue directions to the executive to ratify the UN Convention against Torture.
  3. 3 Whether custodial torture violates Article 21 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court cannot direct the legislature to enact a law or direct the executive to ratify the UN Convention against Torture, as such directions would violate the doctrine of separation of powers. The matter is under active consideration by the executive and Parliament, and judicial intervention is inappropriate except in cases of gross violation of human rights where the Court may issue guidelines. Existing guidelines and jurisprudence on custodial torture and compensation are sufficient and courts retain the jurisdiction to deal with individual cases.

Court Disposition

Prayer for direction to Parliament to enact a law is rejected; miscellaneous application disposed.

Orders

  • Application seeking direction to Parliament to enact legislation on custodial torture rejected.
  • Clarified that courts retain jurisdiction to deal with individual cases of custodial torture.