LLM Notes: Key findings of Supreme Court in the case of Dr Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India (2019)

 Key findings in Dr Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India (2019) can be reduced to a few clear exam‑oriented points:

1. Torture = Article 21 Violation, Crime Against Humanity

• The Court reaffirmed that torture in any form is inhuman, degrading, offends human dignity and constitutes an inroad into the right to life under Article 21; no law or procedure can authorise such treatment.​

• Custodial torture was described as a “crime against humanity” directly infringing Article 21, attracting constitutional scrutiny and remedies.

  ​

2. Acknowledgment of Legislative Vacuum but No Mandamus to Parliament

• The petitioner asked the Court to direct the Union to enact a stand‑alone anti‑torture law in line with the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT).​

• The Court accepted that there is a serious legislative gap: existing IPC/CrPC provisions and judicial guidelines are not a full answer to systemic custodial torture, and UNCAT‑compliant legislation is desirable.​

• However, it held that issuing a direction to Parliament to enact a particular law would violate the principle of separation of powers, and therefore refused to command the legislature to pass an anti‑torture statute.​

3. Separation of Powers: Limits on Judicial Law‑Making

• The Court emphasised that while the judiciary can interpret the Constitution, issue guidelines, and fill interstices, it cannot compel Parliament to frame a specific legislative scheme based on an international convention. It reiterated that the doctrine of separation of powers in India is better understood as “division of labour” and “checks and balances”, not rigid compartmentalisation; yet primary responsibility for law‑making remains with the legislature.​

4. No Bar on Courts Dealing With Individual Custodial Torture Cases

• The Court clarified that dismissal of the prayer to mandate legislation does not dilute or restrict the power of constitutional courts to:

  • Entertain individual cases of custodial torture,

  • Grant compensation, and

  • Issue appropriate directions in specific fact situations.​

• Thus, D.K. Basu–type guidelines and public‑law compensation jurisprudence remain fully operative, and courts can continue to develop remedies case by case.​

5. Continuing Expectation of Executive/Legislative Action

• The judgment notes the delay and inaction since India signed UNCAT in 1997 despite recommendations of expert bodies and committees, and records this as “unreasonable and unacceptable conduct” from a constitutional standpoint.​

• While not issuing a mandamus, the Court strongly indicates that it is for the Union to now take appropriate steps to consider and frame comprehensive anti‑torture legislation, consistent with India’s international commitments and Articles 21 and 14.​

For an answer, you can compress this into: (1) torture = Article 21 violation and crime against humanity, (2) acknowledged need for a separate law but no direction to Parliament, (3) strong reaffirmation of separation of powers, (4) courts’ powers in individual torture cases preserved, and (5) moral and constitutional nudge to the Union to act legislatively.