{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0200845665961945, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008456659619450317, 'mean_word_length': 5.486301369863014, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Proscribing torture: an analysis in Indian and ethical contexts

The article seeks context for the 2010 Indian Prevention of Torture Bill, by critically examining the nature of the international law proscribing torture, then the universality of torture’s immorality. Argument covers the scholarship on torture categories and addresses the probity of evidence deriving from tortured subjects. It critically investigates the sociological literature on torture. It states a suggested policy guide, developed in a worldwide context, and therefore of use by any jurisdiction. In particular, this paper considers the underpinnings of the prohibition against torture and also will analyse the proposed Indian Bill on the delimited basis of the conflicting ideologies of the two greater jurists, Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham. This paper asks whether the new Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010 (India), still not enacted, would prevent torture in India.