258. The Committee considered the second periodic report of India (CCPRX1371Add.13) at its 1039th to 1042nd meetings, on 26 and 27 March 1991 (see CCPR/C/SR.1039-1042). 259. The report was introduced by the representative of the State party, who explained that India was a secular and democratic republic where freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship were guaranteed to all citizens. The Constitution provided for parliamentary democracy with a division of powers among the legislature, the executive and the judiciary and established a union of state6 within a federal structure. Since the submission of India’s initial report, the new State of Mizorem had come into existence, the former Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh had been granted Statehood, Goa had become a full-fledged State and Daman and Diu had been retained a6 a union territory. The latest general elections to the Ninth Lok had been held in November 1989, 260. The Supreme Court of India and the High Court6 in the individual States ensured the effective implementation of human rights through a liberalized review of administrative action. Such liberalization had led to the growth of public interest litigation and the seizure of court jurisdiction in such matters, even on the basis of postcard6 or telegram6 received from individual6 or of stories or reports published in magazine6 or newspapers, and the provision of compulsory legal aid to the needy. The Indian judiciary had also made an important contribution to the safeguarding of other major areas of human rights, including the right to life and personal liberty, freedom of expression and speech and the protection of minorities. The Supreme Court had indicated that the death penalty should be used a6 an exception in extremely rare cases and even then only as a deterrent. 1 frwrk wime Covmt is I-. 261. With regard to that issue, member6 of the Committee wished to receive clarification of the status of the Covenant within the Indian legal system. They asked, in particular, how contradictions between domestic legislation and the Covenant were resolved and whether there had been any cases during the period under review where the provision6 of the Covenant had been directly invoked before the courts or referred to in court decisions or where a law had been rejected by a court on the ground that i’ c was contrary to the Covenant. They also wiehed to know what further measure6 had been taken since the consideration of the initial report to disseminate information on the rights recognized in the Covenant, particularly among the various minority communities and law enforcement officers, especially those in the police and the army! and what factors and difficulties, if any, affected the implementation of the Covenant. In the latter regard, they inquired about the impact of India’s large population and of it6 culture and tradition6 on the implementation of human rights contained in the Covenant, and about measures that had been taken to resolve conflict6 thnt had led to violence in the past, 2G2. In addition, members of the Committee asked whether the Supreme Court was empowered to act in first instance on human rights violations routinely, or only in certain cases; what the scope and main features of epistolary jurisdiction were, particularly in the light of the large numbers of people who were illiterate, and what had prompted that juriSdiCtiOn’6 establishment. -66-