Chapter XVIII

THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION

risonisation symbolises a system of punishment and also a sort of
P institutional placement of undertrials and suspects during the period of
trial.' Since there cannot be a society without crime and criminals, the
institution of prison is indispensable for every country.
The history of prisons in India and elsewhere clearly reflects the
changes in society's reaction to crime from time to time. The system of
imprisonment represents a curious combination of different objectives of
punishment. Thus prison may serve to deter the offender or it may b0o used
as a method of retribution or vengeance by making the life of the offender
miserable and difficult. The isolated life in prison and incapacity of inmates
to repeat crime while in the prison, fulfils the preventive purpose of
punishment. It also helps in keeping crime under control by elimination of
criminals from the society. That apart, prison may also serve as an
institution for the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders. It, therefore,
follows that whatever be the object of punishment, the prison serves to keep
offenders under custody and control.
The attitude of society towards prisoners may vary according to the
object of punishment and social reaction to crime in a given community. If
the prisons are meant for retribution or deterrence, the condition inside
them shall be punitive in nature inflicting greater pain and suffering and
imposing severe restrictions on inmates. On the other hand, if the prison is
used as an institution to treat the criminal as a deviant, there would be
lesser restrictions and control over him inside the institution. The modern
progressive view, however, regards crime as a social disease and favours
treatment of offenders through non-penal methods such as probation, parole,
open jail etc. Whatever be the reaction of society to crime, the lodging of
criminals in prison gives rise to several problems of correction, rehabilitation
and reformation which constitute vital aspects of prison administration.
It is significant to note that the prison inmates are to be dealt with
different punishments because uniform punishment for all of them would
hardly serve the ends of justice. It, therefore, necessitates classification of
prisoners into different categories depending on the gravity of their offence
-and the term of punishment awarded to them. Proper classification of
offenders for the purpose of treatment is a pre-condition for an ideal penal
programme. The introduction of modern 'classification methods' in prisons is
essentially directed to meet this end.
The origin of prison is inter-linked with the system of imprisonment
which originated in the first quarter of nineteenth century. Initially, prisons
were used as detention houses for under-trials. Persons who were guilty of

1. Sharma P. D. Police and Criminal Justice Administration in India. (1985) p. 145.

348 )
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION 349

some political offence or war crime or who failed to pay their debts or fines
were lodged in prison cells with a view to extracting confession from them or
securing the payment of debts or fines Aubsequent1y, with the march of time
and advancement of knowledge and civilisation, the conditions of prisons
also improved considerably. Since the present day penology centres round
imprisonment as a measure of rehabilitation of offenders, the prisons are no
longer mere detention houses for the offenders but they seek to reform
inmates for their future life. The modern techniques of punishment lay
greater emphasis on reformation, correction and rehabilitation of criminals.
The modern prison system in India is essentially based on the British
Prison model which in itself is an outcome of prison developments in
America during the late eighteenth century. It will, therefore, be in the
fitness of things to trace the evolution of prison system in America, Britain,
Russia etc. before dealing with the prison developments in India.
The American Prison System
The medieval period in history of American colonies witnessed an era of
barbarism and deterrent punishment for criminals. The offenders were
mercilessly tortured and brutally treated. Even for minor offences they were
subjected to severe punishment such as death, public humiliation, branding,
whipping and so on. Those who were to be tried for political offences,
war-crimes or blasphemy, were kept in prison as undertrials. Thus
imprisonment -was used only in rare cases. The life inside the prison was
hard, unbearable and painful. With the march of time, public opinion
mobilised against these barbarous methods of treating the prisoners which
eventually led to the passing of famous Penn's Charter of 1862. The object of
this Charter was to put an end to brutal methods of punishment on
humanitarian grounds and bring out reforms in prison administration.' The
Charter inter alia contained that :
1. The practice of releasing prisoners on bail should be introduced.
2. Compensation should be allowed to person's who were wrongfully
imprisoned and this amount should be double the amount
actually suffered by the victim of the offender's act:
3. Prisoners should be allowed the choice of their food and lodging
to a certain extent.
4. The system of 'Pillory' i.e. punishing the offender in public places
should be abolished.
The period that followed brought a better future for prisoners. With the
advance of civilization, greater emphasis was laid on prisoner's reformation.
The Quaker's Movement' in 1775 led to remodelling of Philadelphian prison
on a new pattern. The prisoners were classified into two main categories,
namely,-
(i) incorrigible or hardened criminals ; and
(ii) corrigible or ordinary criminals who were capable of reformation.
Incorrigible prisoners were subjected to solitary confinement in cells
1. Vold, G. B. ; Theoretical Criminology (1958 Ed.)
p. 89.
2. Quaker's were a religious sect who condemned inhumane treatment of offenders on
theological grounds.
350 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

without any labour whereas the corrigibles were lodged together in rooms
and were put to work in shops during day time. Women delinquents and
vagrants were kept in separate well-fenced quarters. Thus the prison was
modelled on two major principles, namely, work during day and
humanitarian treatment of offenders. The condition of Philadelphian prison,
however, deteriorated towards the end of eighteenth century due to
overcrowding, laxity in discipline and abuse of power by Governors This
necessitated establishment of a new Model Prison elsewhere. Eventually, two
model prisons were set up, one at , Pennsylvania and the other at Auburn.
Broadly speaking, the study of American prisons comprises these two
systems which were started simultaneously in Pennsylvania and Auburn.

The Pennsylvania System

The Pennsylvania system was first introduced in the Walnut Street
Prison in Philadelphia in 1790. The prisoners were kept in complete
isolation in separate cells during day and night. Even the food was served to
the prisoners in their cells. Solitary confinement of prisoners in isolated cells
was designed to bring about quick reformation in them because of its
extreme deterrent effect. But complete segregation of prisoners in isolated
cells without any work brought them untold miseries and a large number of
inmates died due to unbearable monotony of prison life. Those who survived
their term of solitary confinement, either returned mad or irresponsible. To
avoid these horrible results, the system of labour and work was introduced
for prisoners but it was to be done in isolated cells and not in congregate
shops. The arrangement of cells in this prison resembled the spokes of a
wheel with a guardroom in the centre. While carrying prisoners from one
place to another their faces were covered by hoods so that they could not see
each other. Only certain designated persons such as wardens, chaplain and
representatives of social welfare organisations were allowed to visit this
prison and establish contact with inmates but the friends, relatives and
other inmates could not have access to the prisoner during his prison term.
The inmates were subjected to prayers and appropriate discourses so that
they behaved themselves with greatest propriety and decorum.' The major
setback of this system was lack of productive labour for. prisoners,
over-crowding and cruelty. Consequently, this prison fell into disuse by the
later half of the nineteenth century and was finally abandoned in favour of
Auburn system.
The Auburn System
A new prison modelled on Pennsylvania pattern was built at Auburn in
New York State in 1818-19. The distinguishing feature of this system was
that prisoners were to work in shops under a strict rule of silence. In the
initial stage, only hardened criminals were brought to this prison to undergo
solitary confinement without work. But experience with this prison showed
that severity of,solitary confinement had fatal consequences on physical and
mental health of inmates and most of them suffered mental disorder or
committed suicide. Consequently, a large number of prisoners were pardoned
and released An 1823 The system which was adopted in this prison after
1. Negley K. Teeters : The Cradles of the Penitentiary (Pennsylvania) Prison Society,
P.
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION
351
1823 came to be known as the Auburn system.
The essence of Auburn system lay in forced silence and separation at
night but congregate work in shops during day time. Commenting on the
working of Auburn System, J.L. Gil/in
observed that most serious and
hardened criminals were kept in solitary confinement in complete isolation
so that they could spend their days in penance and repentance for their
crime. The prisoners who were deemed corrigibles were made to work in
shops during day but were housed in isolated cells duringnight-time The
striking feature of the syst
e m was that the prisoners were not allowed to
talk or communicate with each other while at work or during lunch or
supper. Those who tried to break silence, were flogged and punished Thus
fiord labour in shops during day time was considered essential from the
iint of view of physical and mental fitness of inmates while enforcement of
silence in association served as a measure of punitive reaction to crime.
Even visits by the members of the prisoner's family were forbidden. It is for
this reason that Gillin characterised the Auburn s
y stem as "a system of
discipline by repression and labour under fear." Although the system yielded
useful results and silence while at work or during leisure prevented
contamination of prisoners, but it was undoubtedly a brutal method of
treating the offenders and it hardly had any reformative impact on them.
The s y
stem as a whole provided no exercise, play or sociability. The warden
himself had no conversation with the prisoners until just before their release
when the inmate was given three dollers and advice.'
From the foregoing analysis, it is evident that both the systems lay
greater emphasis on non-communication between the prisoners and
extracting work from them during day time and keeping them in complete
isolation during night. The only difference between the two was that in
Pennsylvanian system the prisoners were to live and work in isolated cells
and, therefore they could not even know each ether while the Auburn system
provided congregate work in shops during day where the prisoners could see
and know each other but could not, however, communicate It is primarily,
for this reason that Donald Tuft
characterised the Pennsylvanian system as
the separate s ystem and the Auburn system as the
silent system.'
The Elmira Reformatory
Isolation of Prisoners in solitary cells, "work during day and
reformation through religious sermons remained the basic feature of the
Auburn as well as the Pennsylvanian prison system till 1870. The
succeeding years, however, witnessed an era of revolutionary changes in the
history of American prisons. During the next thirty years these systems
were superseded by the Elmira Reformatory in New York which provided for
indeterminate sentence, parole and probation. The inmates were categorised
as hardened criminals and incorrigibles for the purpose of treatment in
prison. With new developments in penology during the early decades of
twentieth century, the prisons no longer remained the dump-houses for
convicts but were used as places of industry to train inmates for skilled
work. This obivously served a dual purpose. Firstly, it helped in the

1. Tuft and England : Criminology (4th Ed.) p. 408.

2. lIed p. 405.
352 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

rehabilitation of prisoners and secondly, work in prisons kept inmates

engaged during their stay in prison with the result they were mentally and
physically fit to return as a useful member of society after their release. It
was around 1930 that individualisation of prisoners became the object of
punishment and hence the criminals were graded not according to their age,
sex or dangerousness but according to their individual needs and chances of
rehabilitation.
The opening of Reception Centre at Illionis in 1933 marked the
beginning of reformative era in the American prison system. The cells in this
prison were airy, well ventilated and equipped with adequate arrangement of
lights. The conditions of health and sanitation were considerably improved
and inmates were provided facilities for reading, writing and schooling.
Adequate arrangements were also made for physical exercise and recreation
of inmates. The prisoners were to dine together in a common mess and they
could meet their relatives and friends on certain fixed days. The sentence of
solitary confinement was completely abolished and general tendency was to
narrow down the gap between the outside free-life and the life inside the
prison to the maximum possible extent.'
Despite a series of prison reforms, the condition of American prisons
still remains deplorable. A recent study on American prisons reveals that
they are overcrowded beyond belief. Mr. Ramsey Clark, a former Attorney
General of the United States under President Johnson was sunk in deep and
dogmatic gloom claiming that more than half of those sent to prisons
returned there sooner or later after their release.' The general level of
American prisons has been appallingly low. They have been allowed to
stagnate due to ever-increasing criminality and the criminal being pushed to
Jail indiscreetly. Beating up, extortion, blackmail and sexual assaults are
common occurrences in prison institutions. As Sir Leon Radzinowicz rightly
pointed out, "the loosening of rigid control, the gap between the goal and its
fulfilment, the feeling that much could be seized with a bit of more
self-assertion, has provoked violence in many kinds of situations leading to
rebellion inside the prisons".
Earlier, even the courts had little regard for the rights of prisoners as
they believed that as a result of his conviction the prisoner has "forfeited his
liberty and personal rights except those which the law in its humanity
accords to him". However, this attitude of indifference has now changed due
to human rights consciousness of the American Judges and the
constitutional rights of prisoners in USA are now well safeguarded.
The British Prison System
Like United States, in England also, the prisoners were treated
brutally and punishments were barbarous in nature. John Howard in his
famous work entitled, 'The State of Prisons' has described the aweful
condition of British prisons during the eighteenth century. The prisons
according to him were damp and vermin infected and were the places full of
filth, corruption, sex indulgence and all sorts of vices. Beccaria was the first
European criminologist who raised a voice against the continuance of harsh

1. Vold G. B. : Theoretical Criminology (1958), p. 122.

2. Leon Radzinowicz & Joanking : The Growth of Crime, p. 257.
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION 353

and painful treatment to convicted prisoners. Pope XI also advocated the

cause of human treatment to inmates in prisons. He established a cellular
prison in Ghent within his Papal State. This was intended to afford an
opportunity for criminals to spend some time in penance and reform
themselves to return as a law-abiding member of society. This gave a fillip to
the penitentiary movement in England. The first such penitentiary was
established in 1776 at Hersham with solitary cells where inmates were kept
in complete isolation with a view to enabling them to think over their past
crime and correct themselves for future life. In order to mitigate the rigours
of isolation, the prisoners were engaged in hard manual work during day
hours. This kept them physically and mentally fit for the institutional life.
The Act of 1778 passed by the British Parliament marks the beginning
of prison reforms in England. The Act contained elaborate provisions
relating to prison reforms. The entire working of prisons was remodelled.
Under the new system, the inmates were put to work during day id kept
in solitary cells during night. Efforts were made to make them understand
that despite their offensive acts they still had a chance of rehabilitating
themselves in the community after their release from jail. By 1833, the
inmates could meet their friends and relatives more frequently at fixed
intervals and outside visitors were also permitted to go around the prison
and hear complaints from the inmates.
Some significant changes were further made in the prison
administration in the later half of the 19th century. In order to ease the
pressure on British prisons, the prisoners were released on 'Ticket on leave'
on condition that they would not resort to criminality. By this time the
prison administration was transftrred from municipal authorities to the
national Government by the Act of 1877 which was a landmark change in
the history of prison development in Britain.
In 1894, Gladstone Committee recommended the abolition of
unproductive labour in prisons and emphasised the need for work in groups
and improved classification of prisoners. The Committee also recommended
separate reformatories for juvenile offenders. As a result of the Committee's
recommendations the Prison Act was enacted in England in 1898, which was
followed by the Children Act, 1908.
Despite penitentiary arrangements, the political upheaval in Europe
during 18th and 19th century added to the problems of prison
administration in Britain. A large number of war captives and political
offenders had to be ac,commodated in the existing prisons. This inflood of
war prisoners led to overcrowding and mismanagement in prisons. To COPO
with this situation, new penal colonies' were established where a large
number of offenders could be migrated by way of punishment. Thousands of
British prisoners were thus transported to American colonies with a view to
reducing overcrowding in English prisons and at the same time meeting the
problem of labour shortage in the colonies. In course of time, British colonies

1. During 1850's, the Government of France also started transporting the prisoners to
the French Colony in Guinna (South Africa). But the climatic conditions of this region
were so bail that 111(1st prisoners died of ill-health before the y could return to their
home country. Time s y stem was, therefore, suspended and finally abolished during
World War 11.
354 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

were also established in Australia and British prisoners could now also be
transported to Australian regions. The following categories of British
prisoners were preferred for transportation to Australia
(1) Those convicts who were sentenced to transportation of life were
migrated to Australian regions to settle there permanently.
(2) Those who were sent in probation-gang, included prisoners who
were expected to work as labourers in the construction of roads
and buildings. They had the option to return to their homeland
on expiry of their period of transportation or settle in Australia
permanently as free men. Significantly, uch prisoners preferred
to stay back and settle in Australia permanently rather than
returning home. The obvious reason being that they could lead
a honourable life in Australia but if they chose to come back,
they were likely to be shunned and avoided by the community
due to the stigma cast on them as ex-convicts.
(3) There were some prisoners who were transported to Australian
regions on a 'parole-pass'. After a specified period the holder of
a parole-pass was entitled to a 'ticket on leave' which
corresponded to our modern parole system. Such prisoners could
be pardoned with or without conditions and were permitted to
return to homeland.
As the time lapsed, the transportation of British prisoners to Australia
proved averse to the British interests. Apart from the huge expenditure
involved in transportation of prisoners, the system proved detrimental to the
interests of the free British settlers in Australia. Moreover, the transported
prisoners being mostly males, the British settlements in Australia virtually
remained womanless which was a great human as well as the sociological
problem. The free-settlers also did not relish the idea that prisoners should
be allowed to settle in these regions permanently. Thus there were frequent
clashes between the prisoners and the free settlers which created new
problems for the British administrators in Australia. As a result of these
unhappy developments, the system had to be abandoned.
Sir Arthur Wailer, the then Chairman of Prison Commission for
England and Wales suggested to the International Penal and Penitentiary
Congress in 1925 that a set of general rules should be drawn up governing
the treatment of prisoners in all the member countries. Thereupon, he along
with his two fellow Commissioners was assigned the job of drafting the
Rules. Consequently, Standard Minimum Rules for the treatment of
Prisoners were drafted for the first time and they were accepted by the
United Nations after World War H. This paved further ground for discussion
on this important topic at international level in subsequent years.
The history of prison reforms in United Kingdom shall remain
incomplete without the mention of Sir Lionel Fox who was a great
prison-reformer of the present century. His contribution to the field of prison
reforms in England is so great that most of the modern techniques of prison
administration owe their origin to him. He held distinguished positions as a
prison administrator. He was the Secretary of the Prison Commission from
1925 to 1934 and later, the Chairman of the Commission from 1942 to 1960.
During his association with prison administration, he emphasised on two
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION 355

main considerations. Firstly, he suggested that public should always be kept

well informed about the working inside the prisons through intensive
reporting and arranging frequent visits of pressmen and other social workers
in prisons. With this end in view, he initiated a Prison Service Journal in
1960. Secondly, he stressed that prison administration should aim at
reconciling the conflicting objectives of deterrence and reformation. He
suggested that English prison system since 1895 was modelled on the
principles set out in the Gladstone Committee's Report 'Which underlined the
need for deterrence and reformation which were the primary and concurrent
objects of treatment of offenders. Sir Lionel Fox further pointed out that the
conflict between these two objectives, namely, deterrence and reformation,
can only be resolved if it is accepted that 'the element of deterrence in
punishment lies fundamentally not in severity of punishment but in
certainty of detection and punishment. Thus, in his view the deterrent
inside the prison is to be found in the fact of imprisonment and not in the
severity of the prison regime.'
These objectives were effectively incorporated in the prison regulations
framed under the English Criminal Justice Act, 1948. Sir Lionel Fox
advocated setting up of open-prisons and as a result of his persistent efforts,
the number of such open institutions was raised from one in 1942 to thirteen
during his tenure as the Chairman of the Prison Commission. These
included three open prisons exclusively for women. He also increased the
number of Borstals from one to fifteen including thirteen for boys and two
for girls. Besides these institutions, he also started what he called the
"Hostel system" in Bristol in 1953 for long-term prisoners. This institution
was mostly used to accommodate the preventive detenues who earned their
living by taking ordinary jobs in city and returned back to the hostel after
their day's work. In 1958, the hostel system was extended to prisoners
undergoing long term sentence. The working of the Hostel system was
highly appreciated by the Prison Commission in its Annual Report of 1962.
There are a number of such hostels functioning in England at present, some
of them being exclusively for the women prisoners. Sir Lionel Fox's penal
reforms were recognised throughout the Anglo-American world. He was also
closely associated with the International Penal and Penitentiary Commission
for several years.
The English Criminal Justice Act, 1982 envisages a scheme of
liberalised parole system to ease the pressure of prison population. The
mounting pressure on prisons in England and Wales is evinced by the fact
that there were more than 45,000 inmates in prisons in July, 1981 with the
result freedom of movement of prisoners in many prisons has been
drastically reduced. 2 Some prisoners on remand had to be housed even in
police station garages. To cope up with the situation, it was proposed to
release prisoners on licence after serving one-third of the sentence, thus
removing the discretion of Parole Board. The Parole Board, however, did not
favour such a time-bound release and instead suggested that it should be

1. Lionel Fox Studies in Penology (published by the International Penal and

Penitentiary Commission in 1964. p. 187.)
2. Prison Statistics for 1981, C,n,,dI. 8654 (1982).
316 CPIMNOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

limited to short term sentences.' This proposal was, however, re j ected by the
British Parliament while discussing the Criminal Justice Bill in 1982 and
partially suspended sentence" was accepted as an alternative to this proposal
as it would make parole a more constructive measure because the minimum
period under the Act is twelve months or one third of the sentence,
whichever is longer. Thus, deduction of minimum period for release on
parole brought greater number of prisoners into the parole scheme thereby
reducing the pressure on prison administration.
The salient features of the present prison system in Britain may be
summarised as follows :- -
1. The prisoners are classified into difThrent categories through
Group therapy method.
2. The inmates are provided vocational training inside the prison
for their physical, moral and mental upliftment.
3. Reformation of the prisoner is sought within the community
itself.
4. After the prisoner's release frori the prison, his rehabilitation and
socialisation is entrusted to After Care institutions or voluntary
social service organisations.
5. Prisons are treated as minimum security institutions wherein
basic rights of prisoners, should he duly recognised.
The Russian Prisons
In Russia, the prisons are called Miesta Lischenja Suobadi meaning the
places of withdrawn. freedom. The Russian prison system also provides for
open colonies for prisoners.
The noted penologist Lenkon Von Koerber, in her book entitled Soviet
Russia Fights Crime' gives an interesting account of conditions in Russian
prisons. The educative reforms system adopted in these prisons offers better
opportunities for inmates to reform and rehabilitate themselves in normal
life. A prison sentence is never less than a year so as to provide adequate
training to the inmate. Liberal good time allowance' is granted to prisoners
and they can be released before the expiry of their term of sentence : The
prisoners are allowed wages for the work done by them. Thus their family
and children are saved from hardship and starvation. The amount of wages
depends on the quality and quantity of work done by the prisoners. Out of
the total wage earned by an inmate two-third is paid to him in cash while
the. remaining one-third is given to him at the time of his release.
The system also provides for education, adequate means of recreation
and religious discourses. The prisoners form a Council of Culture to settle
their mutual disputes in a spirit of co-operation. This also provides an
opportunity for self-government in these prisons. They can use their own
clothings instead of the uniform prescribed for inmates.

1. The Report of the Parole Board for 1981 (1982).

2. The English Criminal Justice Act, 1982, Sec. 30.
3. Two ,lays good work is reckoned as three day's detention.
1. (Gerber L. Soviet Russia Fights Crime, o. 177.
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION 357

International Penal and Penitentiary Commission and Prison

Reforms
As stated earlier, the International Penal and Penitentiary Commission
made an endeavour in 1929 to work out Standard Minimum Rules for the
treatment of prisoners which could be uniformly applicable throughout the
world, but its attempt failed because of the variations in geographical,
physical and political conditions of different countries. Thereafter, in 1949
the United Nations convened a meeting of the group of experts to consider
the problem of crime prevention and to fraie standard minimum rules for
this purpose. Consequently,, a draft of standard minimum rules for the
treatment of prisoners was submitted by the First Congress on Preventon of
Crime and Treatment of Offenders, U.N.O. Geneva in 1955. Modern prison
reforms of most of the countries are mainly based on these Standard
Minimum rules. The rules sought to eliminate undue torture and suffering
to prisoners and narrowing down the gap between the prison life and the
free-life. There was greater emphasis on rehabilitation of the prisoner and
training him for his return to normal life in society. The prisoners were to be
humanly treated and not brutally punished.
The General Assembly of United Nations passed a resolution in Geneva
Congress in 1955 providing for convening every five years, a World
Congress on Prevention of Crime and Treatment of offenders.'
Consequently, the Congresses are held every five years as follows
1. The First Congress (Geneva, Switzerland), 1955.
2. The Second Congress (London, U.K.) 1960.
3. The Third Congress (Stockholm, Sweden), 1965.
4. The Fourth Congress (Kyota, Japan), 1970;
5. The Fifth Congress (Geneva, Switzerland), 1975.
6. The Sixth Congress (Caracas, Venezuela) 1980.
7. The Seventh Congress (Milan, Italy), 1985.
8. The Eighth Congress (Havana, Latin America), 1990.
9. The Ninth Congress (Cairo, Egypt) 1995.
10. The Tenth Congress (Vienna, Austria) 2000.
The objectives of the Congresses on Prevention of Crime and Treatment
of offenders are to work out evaluative methodologies for correctional
services and treatment of offenders.
Greatly impressed by/the recommendations of U.N. Congress on crime
prevention, many member countries modified their prison rules with a view
to mitigating the rigours of prison life.' These changes were directed towards
reforming the delinquents and preventing their relapse into crime.' The
prisoners were to be kept engaged in work suitable to their health and
physique and were to receive wages for their labour.' They were not to be
subjected to unnecessary humiliation but were to be helped in readapting
themselves to social life after their release.

1. For details, see Infra chapter on 'Crime Prevention' pp. 420-439.

2. Art. 24 of the Swedish Constitution, 1945.
3, Art. 3 of the Yugoslavian Code, 1951.
4. Art. 18 of the Argentine Constitution.
358 CRiMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

Commenting on the ideals laid down for an efficient prison system, the
Attorney-General of United States once observed that in foct an ideal prison
is an impossibility. The Third International Conference held in Rome in 1955
recommended that work in industrial establishments without confinement is
an effective alternative for imprisonment and admonition of offenders. It
also serves the purpose of adequate punishment in cases of minor offences.
During the preceding thirty five years, a number of conferences and
seminars have been organised under the auspices of United Nations for the
prevention of crime and treatment of offenders which have yielded positive
results. 7

An overall assessment of the working of the Standard Minimum Rules

was made in the Fifth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime
and the Treatment of Offenders held in Geneva in 1975. It was found that
not a single country had honestly claimed to have fulfilled these basic
requirements. Only sixty two countries, which comprised less than half the
total member nations replied to an enquiry on this matter and most of them
expressed practical difficulties in adopting the rules. Financial constraints,
lack of qualified staff and shortage of accommodation were the main
restraints in adopting these Rules.
There has been a suggestion from certain quarters that offender should
be compelled to pay reparation to the victim of his crime and this should
also include the court-costs incurred by the latter. But, the success of this
proposal is seriously doubted because reparation may be an adequate relief
in civil matters but not in criminal cases. The reason being that wealthy
persons find it easy to secure their discharge by paying off the requisite
amount of compensation. That apart, it would provide opportunities for
fraud in raising fictitious claims of rcnaration. Other alternatives suggested
as a substitute for imprisonment of offenders are suspending the civil rights
such as the right of citizenship, employment, pension etc. or compulsory
work in industrial establishments. The Columbian legal system, however,
considers externment of the offender from his native place for a certain
period of time as an adequate alternative for prison system. Norway and
Sweden have introduced the system of OPCfl camps for prisoners. The
Canadian prisoners are permitted to visit their ailing relatives and friends.
The prisoners in England can even be at the bed side of their dying
relatives. The Japanese prison system considers parole as the most
important characteristic of the progressive treatment system which aims at
allowing prisoners to receive mitigated treatment and at the same time
requires them to discharge their responsibility as. a healthy minded citizen.'
Prison; in India
A well organised system of prisons is known to have existed in India
from the earliest times. It is on record that Bra/iaspciti laid great stress on
imprisonment of convicts in closed prisons. however, Ma,iu was against this
system. Kauti/ya in his Arthashastru has stated that rulers in ancient India
made frequent use of fortresses to lodge their prisoners. Ile was personally
of the view that as far as possible prisons should be constructed by the

I. Penal and Correctional Institution in Japan, Ministry of Justice, Japan (1957), p.

2526.
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION 359

road-side so that monotony of prison life is reduced to a considerable extent.

In ancient India, greater emphasis was laid on the spiritual aspect of human
life and therefore, the prisons were so modelled as to provide sufficient
opportunity for penance and remonstrance. It was a common practice to
keep the prisoners in solitary confinement so as, to afford them an
opportunity of self-introspection.
The object of punishment during the Hindu and Mughal period in India
was to deter offenders from repeating crime. The recognised modes of
punishment were death sentence, hanging, mutilation, whipping, flogging,
branding or starving to death. Particularly, during the Mughal rule in India
the condition of prisons was awefully draconic. The prisoners were
ill-treated, tortured and subjected to most inhuman treatment. They were
kept under strict surveille and control. Thus the prisons were places of
terror and torture and prison authorities were expected to be tough and
rigorous in implementing sentences.
The British colonial rule in India marked the beginning of penal
reforms in this country. The British prison authorities made strenuous
efforts to improve the condition of Indian prisons and prisoners. They
introduced radical changes in the then existing prison system keeping in
view the sentiments of the indigenous people. The Prison Enquiry
Committee appointed by the Government of India in 1836 recommended for
the abolition of the practice of prisoners working on roads. Adequate steps
were also taken to eradicate corruption among the prison staff. An official
called the Inspector-General of Prisons was appointed for the first time in
1855, who was the Chief Administrator of Prisons in India. His main
function was to maintain discipline among the prisoners and the prison
authorities. With this appointment, the jailer and other petty officials of
prisons could no longer abuse their power and authority.
The second Jail Enquiry Committee in 1862 expressed concern for the
insanitary conditions of Indian prisons which resulted into death of several
prisoners due to illness and disease. It emphasised the need for proper food
and clothing for the prison inmates and medical treatment of ailing
prisoners. Thereafter, certain recommendations were also made by the third
,Jail Enquiry Committee in 1877 followed by further suggestions in 1889 and
1892.
As a result of these recommendations, the Prison Act, 1894 was enacted
to bring about uniformity in the working of prisons in India. it empowered
the then existing Provinces to enact their own prison rules for the prison
administration. The Act provided for classification of prisoners and the
sentence of whipping was abolished. The medical facilities which were
already made available to prisoners in 1866 \verc further improved and
better amenities were provided to women inmates to protect them against
contagious disease. Despite these changed, the prison policy as reflected
through the Act, by and large, remained deterrent.'
During the period from 1907 onwards vigorous efforts were made to
improve the condition of juvenile and young offenders. They were now kept
segregated from hardened adult offenders so as to prevent their

1. Vidya Bhushan : Prison Administration In India, p. 21.

360 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

contamination. A number of reformatories and Borstal institutions modelled

on British pattern were established for the treatment of juvenile delinquents
during early twentieth century.
It must be stated that the freedom movement had a direct impact on
prison conditions in India. The dimension of national movement during the
first half of the twentieth century brought the Indian prisons into social
lime-light. The prison administrators who were mostly British officials,
classified these political prisoners into two broad categories, namely, (i)
violent, and (ii) non-violent. Summary trials were conducted for the political
prisoners in jail precincts since most of these prisoners represented educated
middle class or even the prestigious class of Indian society. The British
prison authorities had to frame elaborate and rigorous jail regulations for
the freedom fighters with minutest details about inmates food, medical care,
recreation, family visitors, parole etc. With the additional burden on prisons
due to inflood of political offenders there was extra burden on traditional jail
budgets, with the result the conventional system was literally ignored and
the condition of prisons deteriorated beyond imagination. The jail authorities
had little time to attend to non-political prisoners.
Indian Jail Reforms Committee 1919-20
The Indian Jail Reforms Committee 1919-20 which was appointed to
suggest measures for prison reforms was headed by Sir Alexender Cardew.
The Committee visited prisons in Burma, Japan, Phillipines, Honkong and
Britain besides the Indian jails, and came to the conclusion that prisons
should not only have deterring influence but they should have a reforming
effect on inmates. The Committee underlined the need for reformative
approach to prison inmates and discouraged the use of corporal punishment
in jails. It recommended utilisation of prison inmates in productive work so
as to bring about their reformation. The Committee also emphasised the
need for after-care programme for the released prisoners for their
rehabilitation.
As a measure of prison reform, the Jail Committee further
recommended that the maximum intake capacity of each jail should be fixed,
depending on its shape and size. In the meantime there was a movement
against retention of solitary confinement as a method of punishment. Taking
a lead in this direction, the State of Bombay abolished solitary cells from its
prisons. Other provinces followed the suit and reformed their prisons on
humanitarian principles.
In 1949 Pakwasa Committee accepted the system of utilising prisoners
as labour for road work without any intensive supervision on them. It was
from this time onwards that the system of payment of wages to inmates for
their labour was introduced. Certain good time laws were also introduced in
jails under which the inmates who behaved well during their term of
imprisonment were rewarded by suitable reduction in the period of their
sentence. The ultimate object of these reforms was to protect the society
from criminals, to reform the offenders, to deter them and to extract
retribution for criminal acts to the satisfaction of the society.
After the Indian Independence, the Constitution of India placed Jail'
along with Police and law and order in the State list of the Seventh
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION 361

Schedule. As a result of this, the Union Government had literally no

responsibility of modernising prisons and their administration.
Unfortunately, even the Five Year Plans offered a very low priority to prison
administration.
The treatment of prisoners on psychological and psychiatric basis
received some attention as a measure of prison reform during 1950's. As
G.B. Void rightly observed, "the rehabilitative activities of the modern prison
are generally of two kinds, namely ; (1) psychological and psychiatric
treatment ; and (2) Educational or vocational training programmes. The
case-work service is the operating instrumentality that makes these more
specialised forms of treatment effective in practice.'
The Government of India invited Dr. WC. Reckless, a technical expert
of the United Nations on Crime prevention and treatment of offtmder6, to
make recommendations on prison reforms in 1951. Later on, a Committee
was appointed to prepare an All India Jail Manual in 1957 on the basis of
the suggestions made by Dr. Walter Rackless. An All India Conference of
Inspector General of Prisons of the Provinces was also convened. Consequent
to these efforts, following major policy guidelines regarding reformation and
rehabilitation of prisoners were unanimously accepted
1. The correctional services should form an integral part of the
Home Department of each State and a Central Bureau of
Correctional Services should be established at the Centre.
2. The reformative methods of probation and parole should be used
to lessen the burden on prisons.
3. State After-Care units should be set up in each State.
4. Solitary confinement as a mode of punishment should be
abolished.
5. Classification of prisoners for the purpose of their treatment was
necessary.
6. The State Jail Manuals should be revised periodically.
As suggested by Pakwasa Committee, a Model Jail was established at
Lucknow in 1949 where the prisoners were made to work on handloom
machines and engaged in various other home industries. The first women
jail was established in Maharashtra at Yarwada. During the last fifty years,
several notable changes have been introduced in the system of prisons in
India. An ideal classification of prisoners has been worked out to suit the
new treatment methods. The prisoners avail the facilities such as, ftirlough,
ticket on leave, medical aid, educational or occupational training etc. Thus
the modern Indian prison is an institution for the treatment and reformation
of inmates. Open Air Prisons and community service are the latest
developments in this area which have proved beneficial to prison community.
In short, the conservative and out-moded methods of handling prisoners are
substituted by liberal treatment methods. The inmates enjoy considerable
liberty these days in varying proportion depending on their perversity and
response to correctional methods.
Despite the reformative measures listed above, the general condition of
prisons in India is still far from satisfactory. The social contempt for prison
1. Vold G. B. Theoretical Criminology (1958 Ed.), p. 293.
362 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

life keeps all sections of society uninformed about what goes on inside the
prison cells. The press and the media seldom highlight the empirical
relations of prison life and public opinion seems little concerned about
modernising the prisons.
Plea for Setting up Prison Panel
The Government of India appointed an All India Jail Reforms
Committee in 1980 with Justice A. N. Mulla as its Chairman. The
Committee suggested setting Up of a National Prison Commission as a
continuing body to bring about modernisation of prisons in India.'
The Committee also made a suggestion that the existing dichotomy of
prison administration at Union and State level should be removed. It
recommended a total ban on the heinous practice of clubbing together
juvenile offenders with the hardened criminals in prisons. The atrocities and
personal assaults on juvenile prisoners which came to the notice of the
authorities in the notorious Tihar Jail Inmate case and the Agra Protective
Home case have served as an eye opener for the administrators.
Consequently, a comprehensive legislation was enacted for the security and
protective care of delinquent juveniles.' The Mulla Committee also
recommended segregation of mentally disturbed prisoners and their
placement in mental asylums.
Yet another recommendation of the Jail Committee was regarding
classification of prisoners on scientific and rational basis. For this purpose,
certain advanced countries have appointed Ombudsman for deciding the
prisoner's grievances. Similar procedure may be adopted in India as well.
Some other recommendations of the Mulla Jail Committee were as
follows :-
1. The condition of prisons should be improved by making adequate
arrangements for food, clothing, sanitation, ventilation etc.
2. The prison staff should be properly trained and organised into
different cadres. It would be advisable to constitute an All India
Service called the Indian Prisons & Correctional Service for
recruitment of Prison officials.
3. After-care, rehabilitation and probation should constitute an
integral part of prison service. Unfortunately, probation law is
not being properly implemented in the country.
4. The media and public men should be allowed to visit prisons and
allied institutions periodically so that public may have first hand
information about conditions inside prisons and be willing to
co-operate with prison officials in rehabilitation work.
5. Lodging of undertrials in jail should be reduced to bare minimum
and they should be kept separate from the convicted prisoners.
Since undertrials constitute a sizable portion of prison
population, their number can be reduced by speedy trials and
liberalisation of bail provisions.

I. J utice Mulla Committee submitted its Report on Ja i ! to Flume Ministry on

31st March, 1983.
2. The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION 363

6. The Government should make an endeavour to provide adequate

resources and funds for prison reforms.
The National Expert Committee on Women Prisoners headed by Justice
yR. Krishna Iyer in its report submitted to the Government in Febuary
1988 recommended induction of more women in the police force in view of
their special role in tackling women and child offenders. Envisaging a far
greater, significant and useful role of women police in context of changing
needs of society, the Committee observed that women police have a greater
potential to cool, defuse and dc-escalate many situations and, therefore,
greater use should be made of them. Women can be employed in
non-combative roles requiring restraint, patience and endurance. The women
police should be an integral part of the police setup, with a special role in
juvenile crime squads specially in urban areas. They should be specially
trained to deal with agitations and mob upsurges in a humane and sensitive
manner and acquire mastery over tactics of unarmed combat.
Role of Prisons in Modern Penology
The utility of prison as an institution for rehabilitation of offenders and
preparing them for normal life has always been a controversial issue.
Stressing on the need for retaining the institution of prison
Dr. Paripurnanand Verma observed that a prison symbolises evil and,
therefore, evil doers find themselves in perfect harmony inside the house of
'evils') This assertion however, seems to be an over simplification of facts as
this does not hold good for all categories of criminals. There are quite a large
number of offenders who are otherwise well behaved and are persons of
respectable class of society but they fall a prey to criminality on account of
momentary impulsiveness, provocation or due to situational circumstances.
There is yet another class of prisoners who are otherwise innocent but have
to bear the rigours of prison life due to miscarriage of justice. Obviously,
such persons find it difficult to adjust themselves to the prison surroundings
and find life inside the prison most painful and disgusting.
The real purpose of sending criminals to prison is to transform them
into honest and law abiding citizens by inculcating in them a distaste for
crime and criminality. But in actual practice, the prison authorities try to
bring out reformation of inmates by use of force and compulsive methods.
Consequently, the change in inmates is temporary and lasts only till the
period they are in prison and as soon as they are released, they quite often
return to the criminal world. It is for this reason that modern trend is to lay
greater emphasis on psychiatric conditions of the prisoners so that they can
be rehabilitated to normal life in the community. This objective can be
successfully achieved through the techniques of probation and parole. The
sincerity, devotion and tactfulness of the prison officials also helps
considerably in the process of offender's rehabilitation.
If the problem of overcrowding in western prisons is due to
permissiveness, loose marriage ties and adorable values of violence and sex
taboos of that society, the Indian prisons are no better for the reason that
economic conditions do not permit to evolve better modes of prison manage-
ment. Therefore, restructuring of prisons in India needs prime attention.
1. Verma Paripurnanand Crime, Criminal and Convict, p. 174.
364 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

The Problem of Overcrowding in Prisons

It is a known fact that prisons in most parts of India are overcrowded.
For instance, there were 8500 prisoners in Tihar -Jail of Delhi in 1995 as
against the capacity of 2500 persons. The baneful effect of overcrowding is
that it does not permit segregation among convicts—those punished for
serious offences and for minor offences. As a result of this, hardened
criminals may spread their influence over other inmates. The juvenile
offenders who are kept in jails because of inadequacy of alternative places
wharg they can be confined, come into contact- with hardened criminals and
are likely to become professional offenders. It is in this backdrop that the
problem of overcrowding in prisons needs to be tackled in right earnest.
The Law Commission in its 78th Report made some recommendations
for easing congestion in prisons. These suggestions include liberalisation of
conditions of release on bail, particularly release of certain categories of
undertrials on bail. Other methods of reducing overcrowding in prisons may
include extensive use of fine as an alternative punishment for imprisonment,
civil commitment and release on probation. Overcrowding may also be
reduced by release on parole a prisoner after he has served part of the
sentence imposed upon him. It is a conditional release of an individual from
prison. The system of remission, leave and premature release may also be
useful in tackling the problem of overcrowding in prison institutions. The All
India Committee on Jail Reforms, headed by Justice A.N. Mulla has in its
Report (1980-83) mentioned about various types of remission and made
useful recommendations to streamline the remission system in India.
The Problem of Prison Discipline
The problem of l)risOfl discipline has always been engaging the
attention of penologists throughout the world. The main object of
pnsonisation is undoubtedly negative insofar as it aims at generating a
feeling of dislike for prison life among the members of society, the object
being to dissuade people from doing acts which may lend them into prison.
Expressing his view about the prison administration, Donald Taft
commented that prisons are deliberately so planned as to provide unpleasant
compulsory isolation from general society. A prison, according to him,
characterises rigid discipline, provision of bare necessities, strict security
arrangements and monotonous routine life. The prison personnel are usually
untrained without any specialised training in their field.' Although with the
modern facilities available to inmates, the rigours of prison-life are
considerably mitigated nevertheless they are likely to become restive if not
kept under proper discipline. There is yet another reason to justify the need
for strict discipline in prison. One might be imprisoned either for the
purpose of custody, control and discipline or from being prevented to escape
or being sent to a correctional institution for treatment. Whatever be the
object, it is certain that the life inside prison necessarily pre-supposes
certain restrictions on the liberty of inmates against their free will. This
consciousness of subjection to compulsive forces of the State through the
agency of prison often leads to scuffle between prison officials and the
inmates. The custody of prisoners should, therefore, ensure their safety and

1. Taft and England Criminology (4th Ed.) pp. 419-20.

 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION 365

security as also minimise the chances of conflict with prison administrators.

Another problem which is so often faced by the prison authorities is to
guard against the possibility of prison-riot which is essentially an outcome of
the combined venture of inmates. In early times when prisoners were lodged
in separate cells, this possibility was completely ruled out as they had no
chance of communicating with each other in the modern sense. Today, the
difference between the prison life and free life is reduced to such an extent
that even the prisoners have become conscious of their rights and obligations
of prison-authorities towards them. Their free intermingling with the outside
world provides them opportunities to unite and raise a common front against
the prison administrators and slightest provocation is sufficient to stimulate
unrest. The general causes of such riots and disturbances are political
instigations, crude disciplinary incidents, monotonous routine of prison life,
separation from members of the family, differences with the prison staff and
step-motherly treatment of wardens and guards towards certain inmates.
The Problem of Prisoners' Health
The state of health of prisoners is also an important issue which needs
attention of the prison authorities. The term 'state of health" includes the
description regarding past and present suffering of the disease of the new
entrants and its duration and treatment taken etc. Sections 37, 39-A, 39-B
and 39-C of the Prisons Act deal with sick prisoners and require that
prisoners at the time of their entry in prison be asked about their health,
particularly relating to Tuberculosis and AIDS etc. and the treatment which
they have undergone for the disease, so that such prisoners apart from being
given special treatment may be segregated from rest of the inmates. It is the
duty of the State to ensure that such type of serious diseases are cured and
not allowed to spread, not only to other prisoners but also the other persons
living outside the prison.
In order to tackle the problem of prisoners suffering from serious
diseases, volunteers may be trained in prison for nursing so that they
effectively help the suffering inmates and develop among them a system of
self-help for protection against diseases like T.B. or AIDS etc.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in Anil Kumar v. State of MR,'
(decided on November 30, 1999), enumerated the factors which account for
increase in the number of prisoners exposed to infection of tuberculosis in
prisons. They are as follows
1. delay in diaguosi, neglect of prisoner's health problems,
insufficient health services in prison and inadequate sputum
smear microscopy facilities;
2. failure of medical services to refer T.B. suspects--for diagnosis or
to initiate timely treatment;
3. transfer of prisoners with infectious tuberculosis between and
inside prisons;
4. overcrowding and prolonged confinement inside cells;
5. failure to segregate infectious cases from other prisoners;
6. sub-standard treatment resulting in failure to cure patients and
1. 2000 (U C. Cr. J 118 (MP) (C. Cr. J stands for Current Criminal Judgments).
366 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

prolonged infectiousness;
7. poor ventilation and poor nutrition may also lead to cause of
disease.
The Court issued directions to the State Government to initiate
adequate steps to control spread of diseases in prisons.
The Problem of Criminality in Prisons
Yet another problem relating to prison discipline concerns criminality
among inmates inside the prison. The continuous long absence from normal
society and detachment from members of the family deprives the inmates of
their sex gratification which is one of the vital biological urges of human life.
Not being able to control this sex desire, the prisoners quite often resort to
unnatural offences such as homosexuality, sodomy etc. Therefore, such
offences and personal assaults are common inside prison walls. To suppress
this menace, some of the- advanced countries have permitted periodical
conjugal visits for inmates so as to offer them a legitimate opportunity to
pacify their sex urge arid thus eliminate crimes of this nature in prisons.
Some penologists have, however, opposed the idea of 'conjugal visits' on the
ground that sexual deprivation must continue as one of the inevitable
suffering of imprisoned life. That apart, conjugal visits seem unnecessary for
three obvious reasons, namely, most prisoners are imprisoned for six months
or less, quite a large number of them are unmarried or separated from their
wives ; and the provision of 'home leave' and parole offers a much better
and more natural solution than conjugal visits in the unfamiliar and
embarrassing atmosphere of a prison.
The Indian prison management does not accept the idea of conjugal
visits as the system of furlough and parole serves a more useful purpose so
far marital relationship between spouses are concerned. That apart, such
conjugal visits cannot be appreciated for the reason of morality and ethical
considerations keeping in view the Indian values and cultural norms. The
Prison Act, 1894 provides for release of prisoners on furlough and parole so
as to maintain unity of their family life.
Another cause of criminality among prison inmates is their frequent
quarrelling inside the institution. Every inmate tries to establish his
superiority over his fellow prisoners. Therefore prisoners often narrate with
exaggeration the tales of their adventure and the dangers overcome by them
while committing crime. The conversation on the subject often leads to a
heated discussion and eventually results into use of force and intimidation.
At times, the situation takes the shape of a group rivalry resulting into
clashes between the inmates. There are occasions when inmates quarrel on
trifling matters like those of distribution of bread, toilets, etc. or the
differences of their opinion about a particular warden, guard or jailor.
The offences of petty thefts are also common in prisons because the
inmates are supplied only the articles of bare necessities. Obviously, the
articles stolen are usually soap, oil, utensils or a few loaves of bread which
are supplied to inmates in prisons.
Last but not the least, the distrust and lack of faith among inmates for
the prison authorities is yet another cause of tension in prisons. The
tendency of disobedience to prison officials and defiance of prison regulations
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION 367

is common with prisoners. The officials of. the prison, namely, the jailers,
superintendents, wardens and guards on their part, are generally rough and
tough with the inmates. Some of them even resort to corrupt practices and
extend undue favours to certain inmates in exchange for petty gains. This
obviously causes resentment among other prisoners and thus a kind of cold
war ensues between the inmates on one hand and the prison authorities on
the other.
Self-Government in Prisons
In order to ensure discipline and obedience among inmates experiments
on self-government in prisons have recently been carried out in America and
elsewhere. The underlying purpose is to ensure complete freedom to
prisoners from external control. Under the system of self-government in
prisons, the inmates are to elect some of their colleagues as their
representatives and the entire prison management is run by this elected
body of inmates. They have complete control over mess and are expected to
look after the interests and welfare of their fellow prisoners. The
self-government of prisoners in Osborn (U.S.A.) jail indicated that the
system proved very successful and the number of escapes was almost
negligible. The inmates generally behaved well and never tried to misuse the
liberty extended to them.
In India, however, the system of self-government in prisons has not
been quite successful. The reason for this unsatisfactory condition is perhaps
the lack of general moral discipline among the criminals who are generally
illiterate persons from the lower strata of society. It is for this reason that
instead of introducing complete self-government system, India has adopted a
system of partial self-government in its prisons. Under this system, the
prisoners who have good prison record are attached to work with wardens
and guards of the institution and thus they act as a common link between
the prison authorities and the fellow inmates. They are extended certain
facilities and are even allowed to move out of the prison occasionally during
the course of their work. This proves helpful in many ways. Firstly, it
develops a sense of duty, honesty, trust and loyalty among the prisoners and
secondly, it has a psychological effect on other inmates as they are convinced
that a disciplined behaviour in prison would entail them certain facilities
including some reduction in their term of sentence like their fellow
prisoners.
Prison Labour
Utilisation of prisoners in productive work has been accepted as one of
the best methods of bringing about rehabilitation of offenders. The XIIth
International Penal and Penitentiary Conference held at Hague in 1950
suggested 'work' as the best alternative for channelising the potential of
prisoners for a useful purpose. Keeping the prisoners engaged in for
productive work would be helpful for their physical and mental fitness. It
would also infuse self-confidence among them and they can think of
returning to society as a law abiding citizen. The greatest advantage of
putting inmates to work as suggested by the penitentiary Conference is that
the wages earned by the prisoners can be utilised for supporting their family
and dependents. Thus it would save the entire family of the prisoner from
368 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

being ruined. In this way the inmates can help and support their family
from inside the prison itself. In short, work would be beneficial to inmates
and at the same time remunerative to the State. It is further suggested that
the working conditions of prisoners should be at par with free workers so
that the values of human dignity are respected' and they are adequately
compensated for the injuries sustained or professional sickness suffered by
them during work. The system of parole and probation and other treatment
methods have helped considerably in the rehabilitation of prisoners.
The Supreme Court of India was called upon to decide the delicate
issue whether prisoners, who are required to do labour as part of their
punishment, should necessarily be paid wages for such work at the rates
prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act. Answering in the affirmative, the
Apex Court in State of Gujarat & another v. IIon'ble High Court of Gujurut,2
observed,
Reformation and rehabilitation is basic policy of criminal
law hence compulsory manual labour from the convicted
prisoner is protected under Art. 23 of the Constitution.
Minimum wages be paid to prisoners for their labour after
deducting the expenses incurred on them. No prisoner can
be asked to do labour free of wages. It is not only the legal
right of a workman to have wages for the work, but also a
social imperative and an ethical compulsion. Extracting
somebody's work without giving him anything in return is
only reminiscent of the period of slavery and the system of
begar.
Referring to the Justice Mulla Committee Report (1983), the Supreme
Court observed that it contains a lot of very valuable suggestions as
All prisoners under sentence should be required to work
subject to their physical and mental fitness as determined
medically. Work is not to be conceived as additional
punishment but as a means of furthering the rehabilitation
of the prisoners, their training for work, the forming of better
work habits, and of preventing idleness and disorder.......
The Court observed that the rates of wages for prisoner's work should
be fair and equitable and not merely nominal and paltry. These rates should
be standardized so as to achieve a broad uniformity in wage system in all
the prisons in each State and Union Territory. However, the State
Government may be permitted to deduct the expenses incurred for food and
clothes of the prisoners from their wages. There is nothing uncivilised or
unsociable in it.
The Court further recommended that the State Government should
make law for setting apart a portion of wages earned-by the prisoners to be
paid as compensation to deserving victims of the offence the commission of
which entitled the sentence of imprisonment to the prisoner.
The Prison Community
Talking about the prison community Dr. Sutherland observed that an
1. Barnes & Teeter : New Horizons in Ciiniinologv' (31d Ed), p. 541.
2. AIR 1998 Sc 3164.
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION 369

offender entering a prison for the first time is introduced to the culture in
much the same way as a child is introduced to the ways of behaving with his
elders. According to him, the general process by which a child is taught the
behaviours of his group is called 'socialization' and the comparable process
among inmates is named prisonization. 1 Every new prisoner has to learn the
technical rules of the prison in which he is lodged. Gradually he adapts
himself to the conditions of prison life. He is expected to be friendly and
loyal to his fellow prisoners. He is to be co-operative with the prison officials
and one who does not follow these traits is ridiculed by his fellow inmates.
It is interesting to note that prisoners classify themselves informally into
different groups according to their reaction to prison life and participation in
prison activities. A few of them assume the role of 'leaders' and pose to look
after the interests of other inmates. They often win the confidence of
wardens and guards of the prison and enjoy certain privileges unofficially. It
is usually said that in matters of food, articles of mess and toilet these so
called 'leaders' manipulate things and even act as racketeers in collusion
with: the prison staff and earn huge profits. In return, they secure certain
unofficial privileges for their fellow prisoners. Thus an understanding is
reached between the prison community and the .prison officials through
these leaders which helps in maintaining harmony inside the institution.
The prisoners who are sentenced for political reasons often assume this role
by virtue of their superior status and knowledge. As Sutherland puts it "the
administrator assigns powers unofficially to certain inmates who control
other inmates and thus he enlists some inmates to aid and control other
inmates.'
Classification of Prisoners
At the time when reaction to crime was purely punitive, there was no
need for classifying prisoners and all of them were flocked together in a
single prison. This system of singular treatment of criminals, however,
turned the prisons into a living hell on earth with all sorts of vices. The sole
object of prisonisation in those days was to subject the inmates to maximum
torture and pain and therefore there was no need to classify them. With the
evolution of penal science during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
century, the offenders were classified into different categories according to
their sex, age and gravity of offence. Even at this time, objective approach to
prisoners was not known. It was towards the end of 19th century that the
idea of individualisation'of prisoners drew attention of penologists and this
principle has since then been firmly established into practice.
Individualisation of offender as a method of his rehabilitation has now
become the cardinal principle of modern penology. Evidently, in the changed
circumstances the earlier classification of criminals on the basis of their
physical differences serves no useful purpose. Therefore, modern penologist
have worked out an objective classification of prisoners according to
differential treatment. In spite of being lodged in maximum security p'risons,
the modern prisoners are placed in quasi-penal and even non-penal
institutions for their reformati"r. The prisoners are now classified according
to the treatment to which they are likely to respond most favourably. In the
1. Sutherland & Cressey "Th.. Principles of Criminology' (6th Ed.), pp. 497-498.
2. Ibid.
370 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

modern context, social-defence, namely, the protection of society from

criminals is the prime object of punishment while classification of prisoners
for treatment is the method of it. To achieve this end, the criminals are
classified into two broad categories, viz, (1) hardened criminals who are fit
fuir treatment in it conventional jail, and (2) casual criminals, who are lit for
treatment in a medium-custody jail or even fit to be sent to a Borstal or
Refuirmatory or released on probation.
Under the present correctional system in United States the task of
classifying inmates for their rehabilitation is performed by the following
agencies
(1) The Central Classification Centre
(2) The Classification Committee ; and
(3) The Reception Centre.
All the convicted persons are first brought befbre the Central
Classification Centre where their antecedents, past history and mental
attitude etc. are thoroughly examined by the expert psychologists and
psychiatrists. If in the opinion of these experts the inmate is considered
responsive to reformation, he is sent to n appropriate correctional
institution as recommended by the Central Classification Centre.
There is a Classification Committee associated with each correctional
institution which decides the outline of treatment programme fuir individual
inmate according to his mental attitude, psychology and possible reaction to
the treatment.
The Reception Centre at each correctional institution, on the other
hand, receives the new inmate on a trial basis for a month or so and plans
to prepare him for his subsequent stay in the institution. Thus the major
function of Reception Centre according to Donald Taft is "inmate-orientation
through group meetings, pictures, booklets and interviews.
It may be suggested that if this pattern of classification of prisoners is
adopted in India, the prison authorities may find it easy to tackle the
problems of prison and prisoners and at the same time it may also
accelerate the reformation of prisoners.
Overall Statistical View of Indian Prisons
The Report on prison statistics as on December 31, 2001 was released
by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on 23rd March, 2004
during the MI India Conference of Directors/IG's and Secretaries (Prisons) in
New Delhi, contained details regarding various prisons and different
categories of inmates as indicated below
Jails
Total Jails in India-1119
Central Jails-98
Dirtrict Jails-267
Sub-Jails---676
Open Jails-24
Special Jails-20
Women Jails-13
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION 371

Other Jails-21
The total manning these jails numbered 44682 of which 2311 (i.e., 5.1%
were women at the end of year 2001).
Inmates
Total Inmates' in Indian Jails is 313635
Mentally 111-307
Convicts-63975
Under-Trials-193627
Dotenues—;3550
Others-10590
Total Women Inmates-9069
Total Foreign Inmates-2425
Of the total 313635 inmates 302541 (i.e., 96.50 ,e) are males and 11094
(i . e., 35 1 j) are females.
As man y as 75663 inmates were convicted prisoners of which 53 4%
\vero convIcted for the offence of murder. The number of under-trials
detained in jail for more than 5 Years during the year 2001 was 1264.
Jail Reform Committee's (1980-83) View on Classification of
Prisoners
While agreeing that segregation of offenders on the basis of sex, age,
criminal record, social backtrroufl(l is art feature of modern prison
system, the Jail Reforms Committee of 1980-83 observed that even today the
undertrial prisoners, prisoners sentenced to short, medium and long terms of
imprisonment habitual offenders lifers, hard and clangorous prisoners,
juvenile or young otjenclers, women offenders, civil and political prisoners,
cletenus under National Securit y Act, FERA, TADA, 5 NDPS Act, etc. are all
kept tognther and 'in realit',' segregation has become a provision only on
paper'. The Committee, therefore, recommended a variety of institutions for
catering to the needs of different categories of offenders. They are as
fol l ows :-
1. Separate prisons or annexes for undertrials;
2. Separate prisons or annexes for women:
:3. Separate semi-open institutions for juveniles and young offenders
with minimum security arrangements;
I
4. Maximum security prisons for professional and hardened
criminals and gangsters who indulge in organised criminality;
5. Separate camps for offenders courting arrests in connection with
social or political movements or participating in strikes, hartals,
protests etc.
These recemmendattons have been accepted in principle by the
Government but the major problem is about the resources needed for setting
1. Tins Inmate population excludes the figures in respect of three newly created States
CZ
Utiaranchal jha':khand ard Chattisgarh because of non-availability of data.
2. TAD.\ was subsequently repealed and later P'(.T,-\ was introduced in its place in
2002. This in turn is also repealed b y the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
is amended b y the Act of 2004.
372 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

Up these different institutions. The State Governments must tackle the

problem oil basis.
The Problem of Undertrial Prisoners
The problem of undertrial prisoners has assumed new proportions in
recent years. Thousands of undertrial prisoners are languishing in various
Jails in different States for periods much longer than the maximum term for
which they could have been sentenced, if convicted. Many of them are
innocent persons who are caught in the web of the law eagerly waiting for
their trial date and several of them are even prepared to confess their crime
and accept the sentence. There are several reasons for this miserable plight
of undertrials, some of them being, courts' inability to take up the cases
because of their busy calender, the prolonged police investigation,
unsatisfactory bail system and legal representation being beyond the meagre
means of poor offenders.
The pre-trial detention essentially involves the question of liberty,
Justice, public safety and burden on public exchequer. The poor are generally
subjected to pretrial detention mostly because they cannot afford sureties
and stand personal bonds. It not only affects the family life of the undertrial
but also adversely affects his morale due to ViCiCUS impact of prison
environment. Mr. Justice y R. Krishna Iycr highlighted the agonies of
pro-trial detenues in the following words
"The consequences of pre-trial detention are grave. Defendants
presumed innocent are subjected to psychological and physical
depravation of jail life, usually under more onerous conditions than are
imposed on convicted defendents. The jailed defendant loses his job if
he has one and is prevented from contributing to the preparation of
his defence. Equally important, the burden of his detention frequently
falls heavily on the innocent members of his family.'
Expressing grave concern at the distressing condition of undertrials in
Bihar Jails, the Supreme Court in Hussaincira Kliatoon v. Home Secretary,
State of Bihar' observed that incarceration of undertrials who had virtually
spent their period of sentence was clearly illegal and a blatant violation of
their fundamental rights guaranteed under Artice 21 of the Constitution of
India. The Court observed that "speedy trial' is a constitutional mandate
and the State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation by pleading financial
or administrative inability. Consequent to the directions issued by the
Supreme Court in this case, the State of Bihar released as many as 18,000
under-trial prisoners in 1981 and other States followed the suit.
Despite the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Hussainara, the
condition of under-trials in prisons is no better and more than a lakh of
under-trials prisoners are languishing in the prisons of India at present. The
provision of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding

1. Molt Rum v. Stale of Madhya Pradesh, 1978 Cri. U 1703.

2. AIR 1979 SC 1360, See also Guru Sei,ak Singh v. Slate of Pun oh (1988) Cr 1.1
1605 (P & H) Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial [Link].
v. (Juno, of India, 1995 SCC (Cr) 39 R.D. Upadhayciya v. State (if Andhra I'radesii,
1966 SCC (Cr) 519 1 'Common Cause—A Regisiered Society v. Union uf India. (1996)
4 SCC 33.
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATiON 373

time limit for completion of police investigation and that of free legal aid to
indigent and poor under-trials or liberalisation of bail etc. have not helped in
minimising the number of under-trial prisoners in Indian Jails.
One of the reasons for multiplying number of undertrial prisons each
day is the system of bail which operates very harshly against the poor
because they find it difficult to furnish bail even without sureties. Being
unable to obtain their release on bail they have to remain in jail until such
time as the Court takes up their case for trial. Obviously, the pre-trial
detention disrupts their family life and leads to disastrous economic
consequences. They are also prevented from taking necessary step to prepare
for defence. Although the provisions contain in Articles 39-A and 22(1)
enumerate the constitutional rights of the accused to be provided free
legal-aid services and the services of the counsel of their choice. to the
indigent accused persons and this help is implicitly guaranteed under Article
21, but the fact remains that the functioning of judicial system still weighs
heavily against the poor as compared with the non-poor. Therefore, the
Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar,' came out with a
suggestion that where the court is satisfied, after taking into account, on the
basis of information placed before it, that the accused has his roots in the
community and is not likely to abscond, it can safely release the accused on
personal bond. In order to determine whether the accused has his roots in
the community which would deter him from fleeing, the Court should take
into consideration the following factors regarding the accused person :-
(1) length of his residence in the community;
(2) his employment details and financial condition;
(3) his family relationship and background;
(4) his reputation, character and past antecedents;
(5) his prior criminal record, if any;
(6) the identity of responsible members of the community who would
vouch for his reliability;
(7) the nature of offence and possibility of his conviction etc.;
(8) any other factor indicating the ties of the accused with the
community or bearing on the risk of wilful failure of the accused
to appear before the Court when required.
The Court held that there are four major grounds when the accused
ma y be denied bail. They are (1) where the offence is grave; (2) where the
accused is likely to interfere with witnesses; (3) if he is likely to repeat the
offence; and (4) he is likely to abscond.
Bar Against Handcuffing
The prisoners are quite often handcuffed while being brought from
prison to court and vice versa for the sake of security and discipline. Even
suspects and undertrials are subjected to this humiliating treatment.
However, the Supreme Court, in Prem Shankar Shukia v. Delhi
Administration observed that, handcuffing is, prima facie, inhuman and,
therefore, unreasonable and harsh and at the first flush arbitrary....to inflict
1. AIR 1979 SC 1360 (1364).
2. AIR 1980 Sc 1535 see also Kadra Pahadiya v. Stole of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 939.
374 CRIM7JOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

'irons' is to resort to zoological strategies repugnant to Article 21". The Court

pointed out that where in extreme cases the accused is to be handcuffed, the
escorting authority must inform the court and record reasons for doing so. It
is onl y after gettin g judicial approval that handcuffing should be resorted to.
Earlier, in 1978, the Supreme Court in Semi Batra and Sobraj's case,'
was seized with the question of legality of prison bars and fetters on
under-trials and held that handcuffing was violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21
and be used only in exceptional cases, that too with the prior judicial
sanction. The two petitioners in this case were Sunil Batra, an Indian under
death sentence and Charles Sobraj a French national, an under-trial facing
detention under MISA from July 1976 and accused of jail-break and other
serious charges. The Court held that locomotion is one of the facets of
personal liberty and, therefore, should not be curtailed as far as possible.
However, where absolutely necessary, handcuffing should be only for small
spells and grounds for fetters' shall be given to the prisoner and recorded
with due approval of the judicial authority.
Solitary Confinement
The validity of keeping prisoners under solitary confinement in the
name of prison discipline was also challenged before the Supreme Court in
Sunil Batra's 2 case on the ground that it was most inhumane and painful.
The petitioner Batra was condemned to death on a murder charge and was
locked in a single cell completely isolated from all inmates. I-Ia challenged
this quasi-solitary confinement and alleged that Section 30 of the Prison Act,
1894 was violative of Arts. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Rejecting the
petition, the Court held that putting a prisoner who is under a 'finally
executable death sentence' in confinement is not solitary confinement since it
is only a part of procedure for execution of death sentence. The Supreme
Court has laid down the parameters of solitary confinement in its decision in
Kish ore Singh Ru ii,, der Dei' v. State of Ru jasthan

Prison Reforms
Undoubtedly, the condition of modern prisons is better than that in the
past but still much remains to be done in the direction of prison reforms for
humane treatment of prisoners. The treatment of prisoners should be in
accordance with the constitutional mandates to secure them the basic rights.
Emphasising the need for change in the attitude of jail authorities towards
the prison-inmates, the Supreme Court in Mo/ianuna.d G,.asstu/zn v. State of
Andhra Pradesh, ' observed
'Progressive criminologist across the world will agree that
the Gandhian diagnosis of oflenders as patients and his
conception of prisons as hospitals—mental or moral—is the
key to the pathology of delinquency and the therapeutic role
of punishment. The whole man is a healthy man and every
man is born good. Criminality is a curable deviance. Our
prison should be correctional houses, not cruel iron arching
1. AIR 1978 Sc 1675.
2. Ibid.
3. AIR 19S1 SC 625.
4. AIR 1977 Sc 1926.
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION

the soul.
The following modifications in prison administration may be suggested
or improving the efficiency of these institutions
(1) The maintenance of prison establishment is an expensive affair.
It is in fact an unevitable burden on the public exchequer.
Therefore, the offenders should be confined to prison for only a
minimum period which is absolutely necessary for their custody.
The elimination of long term sentences would reduce undue
burden on prison expenditure. It is further suggested that where
the term of imprisonment exceeds one year, a remission of one
month or so per year be granted to the inmate so as to enable
him to go to his home town and meet his near relatives. This
will help in his rehabilitation and after his release he can face
the outside world courageously casting aside the stigma attached
to him on account of prisonisation. The periodical furlough
granted to prisoners in India under the Prison Act and the rules
framed thereunder is intended to achieve this objective.
(2) The women prisoners should be treated more generously and
allowed to meet their children frequently. This will keep them
mentally fit and respond favourably to the treatment methods.
A liberal correctional and educational programme seems
necessary in case of women delinquents because they need lesser
control and custody clue to their feminine temperament.
Particularly, the women who fall a prey to sex offence shoul-J be
treated with sympathy and their illegitimate children should b
assured an upright lift in the society. Women prisoners should
also be allowed to meet their sons and daughters more
frequently, particularly the attitude in this regard should be
more liberal in case of under-trial prisoners.' Women offenders
should be handled only by women police or prison officials. The
idea of setting up separate Women jails exclusively for women
prisoners, however, does not seem to be compatible keeping in
view the huge expenditure involved in the process.
(3) The under-trials, minors, recidivists and first offenders should be
kept separated from each other. Similarly, political offenders who
are not guilty of violence should also be kept separate and not
be housed ij the same premises in which other criminals are
lodged. It is inhuman and unreasonable to throw young boys to
sex starved prisoners or to run menial jobs for hardened and
affluent prisoners. The young prisoners should be separated from
adults.
(4) There is need for scientific classification of prisoners based on the
nature of the crime committed, age, sex character and
propensities of the offender including his educational level and
likely response to prison treatnient.2
(5) The prisoners belonging to peasant class should be afforded an

I. Francis cnrulie Mull,,, V. Un,,,,, Ter,-itu,y 1k/hi, AIR 1981 SC 746.

2. Sun,! Batra v. Deli,, Ad n,inis,mtj,,, AIR 1978 SC 1675.
376 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

opportunity to go to their fields during harvesting season on

temporary ticket on leave' so that they can look after their
agriculture. This would enable them to keep in touch with their
(o'('upation and provide means of living to the members of their
family. Thus the unity of family life can be maintained which
would help rehabilitation of the prisoner after his release from
jail
(6) Though the prisoners are allowed to meet their near relatives At
fixed intervals yet there is a further need to allow them certain
privacy during such meetings. The meetings under he
supervision of prison guards are really embarrassin g for inn1aes
as well as the visitors and many thoughts on both sides remain
unexpressed for want of privacy. The rights of the prisoneii to
communicate and meet friends, relatives and legal advissrs
should not he restricted beyond a particular limit.
It roust be stated that frequent jail visits by family members gd
a long way in acceptance of the prisoner by his family and sma
Iiiendly group after his release from jail finally, as the visi,
continue the personal relationship during the term o
imprisonment which brings about a psychological communicatioi
between him and other members of the family.'
7) The present system of limiting the scope of festivals and other
ceremonial occasions merely to delicious dishes for in mates needs
to be changed. 'l'liese auspicious days and festivals should be
celebrated through rejoicings and other meaningful programmes
so that the prisoners can atleast momentarily forget that they
are leading a fettered life.
(8) The existing rules relating to the restrictions and scrutiny of
postal mail of inmates should be liberalised. This shall infuse
trust and confidence among inmates for the prison officials,
(9) The prison legislation should make provision for remedy of
compensation to prisons who are wrongfully detained or suffer
injuries due to callous or negligent acts of the prison personnel.
It is gratifying to note that in recent decades the Supreme Court
has shown deep concern for prisoner's right to justice and fair
treatment and requires prison officials to initiate measures so
that prisoner's basic rights are not violated and they are not
subjected to harassment" and inhuman conditions of'
(10) The education in prisons should be beyond three R's and there
should be greater emphasis on vocational training of inmates.
This will provide them honourable means to earn their livelihood
after release from jail. The facilities of lessons through
correspondence courses should be extended to' inmates who are
desirous of taking up advanced studies. Women prisoners should
be provided training in tailoring, doll-making, embroidary etc.
The prisoners who are wel-educatcd should not be subjected to
1. Dr. Mir. Mi'Iiraj . Ud-dill Crime & Criminal ,Justicc SvsUn in India. Chapter IV
2. i/O F' .01 V. DVIII I Adin LIII s/rat iou , (1988) Cr LI 705 (SC). Sec' a! so B/u UI Oil Mohan
J'ulnatk V . tatc ii/ AP.. AIR 1974 SC 2092
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION 377

rigorous imprisonment, instead they should be engaged in some

mental-cum-manual productive work.'
Of late, efforts are being made to impart -yoga training to the
prison inmates which not only keeps them physically fit but also
makes them mentally healthy. This is indeed a commendable
measure and the scheme should be extended to all the prisons
in India.
(11) In order to make inmates discipline-conscious, 'good time laws'
should further be liberalised. A general policy to cut-short
inmate's sentence in case of good behaviour will offer them an
early opportunity to join the community and at the same time
relieve the burden of the State on their maintenance. The
introduction of 'honour system' in prisons can also attain a
similar goal. Those who react favourably to prison discipline and
display loyalty, should be allowed to associate themselves with
the prison staff and participate in the prison administration. The
premature release of prisoners on national fostivals by way of
political expediency is generally not favoured by penologists
because it goes against the set principles of sentencing.'
(12) On completion of the term of sentence, the inmates should be
placed under an intensive 'After care'. The process of 'After care'
will offer them adequate opportunities to overcome their
inferiority complex and save them from being ridiculed as
'convicts'. Many non-penal institutions such as Seva-Saclans,
Nari-Niketans and Reformation Homes are at work in different
places in India to take up the arduous task of 'After care' and
rehabilitation of criminals. Open Air camps may also serve a
similar purpose. Many States have formed Prisoners Aid
Societies for initiating steps to provide assistance to the
discharged prisoners.
(13) There is dire need to bring about a change in the publiattitude
towards the prison institutions and their management. This is
possible through an intensive publicity programme using the
media or press, platform and propaganda will. It will certainly
create a right climate in society to accept the released prisoners
with sympathy and benevolence without any hatred or distrust
for them. The media-men should be allowed to visit the prison
institutions frequently so that their misunderstanding about
prison-administration may be cleared. Greater participation of
public in prison administration shall certainly create an
atmosphere conducive to reformation of the prisoners. In Prabha
Dutta v. Union of India," the petitioner, a newspaper
correspondent filed a petition to interview two condemned

1. Mo/id. Gaisuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 1925.

2. In Rajendra Prr,sad v. State of UP., AIR 1979 SC 916 the accused was undergoing
life sentence, lie was released on
on Gandhi Jayanti Day and the first thing he did
after release was to avenge the person who got him prosecuted fbi murder and in
course of scuffle he murdered an intervener.
3. (1982) 1 SCC I.
378 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

prisoners Ranga and Billa for which permission was refused to

her by Tihar Jail authorities. The Supreme Court allowed the
interview upholding right of press to have access to prison
inmates.
(14) Last but not the least, the existing Prisons Act, 1894 which is
more than a century old, needs to be thoroughly revised and
even re-stated in view of the changed socio-economic and political
conditions of India over the years. Many of the provisions of this
Act have now become obsolete 'and redundant. The National
Human Rights Commission has also endorsed this view.' -
The Supreme Court, in its landmark decision in Ramamurthy v. State
of Karnataka,' has identified nine major problems which need immediate
attention for implementing prison reforms. The Court observed that the
present prison system is affected with the major problems of (1)
overcrowding (2) delay in trial (3) torture and illtreatment (4) neglect of
health and hygiene (5) insufficient food and inadequate clothing (6) Prison
vices (7) deficiency in communication (8) streamlining of Jail visits and (9)
management of open air prisons.
This decision of the Supreme Court has its origin in a letter written by
one Ramamurthy a prisoner in Central Jail, Bangalore, and addressed to the
Hon:ble Chief Justice of India. In the letter, the grievance was regarding
denial of rightful wages to the prisoners despite their hard working,
non-eatable food and mental and physical torture in jail. The Supreme Court
thereupon passed an order dated 26th November, 1992 directing the District
Judge, Bangalore to visit the Central Jail and find out the pattern of
payment of wages and the general conditions of the prisoners such as
accommodation; sanitation, food, medicine etc. The District Judge submitted
his voluminous Report of more than 300 pages on 28th April, 1993 which
stated that general condition of prisoners, the quality and quantity of food
supplied to them, pattern of payment of wages and accommodation etc. was
satisfactory but sanitary conditions, medical facilities, mental prisoners and
sending prisoners to hospitals outside the jail was not satisfactory. Also the
visits of prisoners to their homes was not proper and regular as per rules
due to shortage of police escorts. The place and procedure followed for
interviews between the prisoners and their kith and kin, friends, visitors etc.
was far from satisfactory. The District Judge in his report also made some
recommendations for consideration and implementation.
Appreciating the admirable work done by the District Judge, the
Supreme Court ordered follow-up action by all the 1155 prisons of India in
order to ensure prison justice.
The Apex Court in this case ruled that though overcrowding in jail is
not constitutionally impermissible, but the same adversely affects health and
hygiene and, therefore, must be taken care of. As regards delay in trial, the
earlier directions of the Supreme Court regarding entrusting the duty of
producing under-trial prisoners on remand dates to the prison staff instead
otto the police, should be followed. The person authorised should inspect the
standard of food and clothing and there should be a complaint book in all
1. Annual Report of NHRC (1994-95) Pai-as 4.18 & 4,21,
2. (1997) 2 SCC 642.
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION
f' Ii

the jails. The Court also emphasised the need of introduction of open air
prisons atleast in District headquarters of the country.
The shockingly poor and miserable conditions prevailing in Indian jails
has been described by a team of journalists in the following words
Man y jails in this country continue to be a byword for
human degradation on the one hand and dens of corruption,
callousness and cruelty on the other. Numerous and repeated
attempts at reforms have failed even to make a dent in the
harsh and dehumanising situation, leave alone bringing out
a thorough reform of the prison system Si) much so that an
experienced observer of the prison scene has been
constrained to mark that a jail sub-culture has grown in
India which sanctifies barbaric treatment of inmates,
including torture, forced labour, sexual perversion, starvation
diet and large scale aggrandisement and exploitation by
petty jail officials protected by power mentors."
A noted social activist and journalist Kusun Chad/ia, has also
expressed concern at the pathetic picture of Tihar Central Jail which is the
Central Jail in the capital city of Delhi. To quote her own words
'Like all big jails in poor and overpopulated countries, Tihar
too bears the distressing marks of repression, avarice, lust
and ago-old attitude of men to his fellow humans. The
convicts and the under-trials both share the common
denominators of wilfully insufficient and inedible food, hard
labour, corrupt warders and contaminated water. Added to
that are over crowded cells and infected hospital, sugarless
tea and flexible rules.....
It is, however, heartening to note that efforts are being made in recent
years to humanise the conditions inside jails by not only providing them
basic amenities but also initiating correctional measures for their
rehabilitation and reformation.
Despite modern techniques of treating the oflënders through a process
of individualised method in prison, there are certain problems which still
remain unsolved. The foremost difficulty arises in treating recidivists or
habitual offenders who do not respond favourably to any of the reformative
methods of treatment. They accept prisonisation as a normal way of life and
criminality as a regular profession. When recidivists are placed in a
correctional institution, they treat it as a place of leisure and comfort. Thus
the treatment methods hardly serve any useful purpose in case of recidivists.
Therefore, such criminals have got to be confined to four walls of the prison
and made to live a strictly regulated life. It need not be stated that hardened
criminals and recidivists are an unnecessary burden on the State but they
have to be tolerated at any rate, for the sake of' respect for human lifC and
social security. Commenting on the policy to be followed in case of
recidivists, Sir Lionel Fox observed, certain people are worthless from social
standpoint and are in fact physically, mentally and morally a burden to

1. Quoted from KD. Gaur's Law & Criminolog y (2003) p. 316.

2. Ibid.
380 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

society and there exists no rational reason to provide care for them.'
Yet another problem about prisons in India is the ever increasing
population of prisoners. This increase in the number of inmates adds to the
cost of prison service while the results still remain far from satisfactory from
the point of view of the protection of societ y as also the rehabilitation of
offenders. May be, this is just a pessimistic assumption raised in an anxiety
to combat crime and visualise a crimcless society. But it cannot be forgotten
that crimes are essentially conditioned by social, economic and political
situations of a particular place. The advancement of knowledge, technology
and civilization has brought about radical changes in our social structure,
economy, political strategy and thinking. Consequently, many new crimes
which were hitherto unknown have sprung up, for example, the offences of
Fraud, embezzlement, forgery, theft of automobiles, gang-style crime,
terrorist activities, bomb blasts, tax evasion, infringement of copyright,
trade-marks and patents and many other corrupt practices are relatively of
it recent origin. That apart, many old crimes are now repeated with new
techniques and methods and with minimal chances of detection. The
problem of increase in population, economic depression and criminalisation
of politics have also contributed to stimulate crime rate. Under the
circumstances, it is erroneous to think that rise in criminality is exclusively
dUO to the failure of our penal policies. Far front so, it is in fact an
indication that we have yet to enlarge the scope of our penal programme to
suit the needs of modern times. The general policy which seems expedient in
the present context is the institutionalised treatment with provision of
minimum security for adults and greater security for juveniles and young
delinquents. The sole contention behind the entire scheme should be to
preserve respect for human life at any cost. The ultimate Object of prison
institution should be to reform the offender rather than to torture and
antagonise him.' As pointed out by Dr. Set/i,ia, "prisons should be 'moral
hospitals' or places of re-education, but they should not be so comfortable as
to be attractive". Inmates should be put to intensive manual labour which
must be productive for the State and useful to the prisoner after his release.
An ideal prison must provide for adequate work, vocational training, basic
educational, medical and recreational facilities for inmates. The prison
management should be made fuoctional, effective and goal oriented so as to
prove itself as an efficient agency of the criminal justice administration.
Custodial Torture in Prisons
The victims of prison injustice, particularly those who are poor and
helpless and cannot afford legal representation have been protected against
torture and harassment. A victim of custodial torture can move the court
directly through a writ petition for protection of his fundamental rights,
specially the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Art. 21 of the
Constitution. The Supreme Court's judicial activism for protecting the rights
of prison inmates and detenus is discernible from a series of cases decided
by the Court. Thus in Prabhakar Pandurang v. State of Maharashtra 4 the
1. Sir Lionel Fox Studies in Penology (IPPC Publication) 1964, p.112
2. Curtis Bok : Problem in Criminal Law (1955) p. 78.
3. Sethna M. J. Society and The Criminal (1964), p. 325.
4. AIR 1966 SC 424.
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION 381

Apex Court ruled that detention in prison cannot deprive the detenu of his
fundamental rights. In the same breathe, the Supreme Court in D. B. M.
Patnaik v. State of AP.' held that mere detention is no ground for
suspension of detenu's fundamental rights. In its historic judgment in Sunil
Batra v. Delhi Administration,' the Apex Court held that prisoners are
entitled to all fundamental rights which are consistent with their
incarceration.
Emphasising the need for humane treatment of prisoners and
protection of their basic human rights, the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra
II,' observed as follows :-
'Fundamental rights do not flee the persons as he enters the
prison although they may suffer shrinkage necessitated by
incarceration.'
Outlining the substantive and procedural rights to which the prisoners
are entitled, the Apex Court said.
"Infliction may take many protean forms apart from physical
assaults. Pushing the prisoner into a solitary cell, denial of
necessary amenity, and more dreadful sometimes, transfer to
a distant prison where visits or society of friends or relations
may be snapped, allotment of degrading labour, assigning
him to a desperate or tough gang and the like, may be
punitive in effect. Every such affiliation or abridgment is an
infraction of liberty or life in its wider sense and cannot be
sustained.
The Court concluded that torture is a tradition in many penal
institutions. That is why as a matter of policy, Articles 8 and 9 of the
Declaration of the Protection of all persons from torture and other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment of punishment adopted by UN General
Assembly should be implemented by all nations.
In Hussainara Khatoon, 4 the Supreme Court observed that a procedure
which does not make legal services available to a poor undertrial person
cannot be regarded as just, fair and reasonable and, therefore, violative of
right to legal aid of the poor accused as contemplated by Art. 21 of the
Constitution. The Court in this case ordered release of those undertrials who
were languishing in jails for an inordinately long period.
In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra,' the Supreme Court on a
complaint of custodial violence to women prisoners in jails, directed that to
those helpless victims of prison injustice should be provided legal assistance
at the State cost and protected against torture and maltreatment.
In Sanjay Sari," the Apex Court held that the prison authorities should
change their attitude towards prison inmates and protect their human rights
for the sake of humanity.

1. AIR 1971 Sc 2092.

2. AIR 1978 sc 1675.
3. (1983) 3 scc 488.
4. AIR 1979 sc 1819.
5. AIR 1983 Sc 378.
6. San jay Sari v. Delhi Administration, (1988) Cr LJ 705 (Sc).
 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

in Lurestingl y, sic put ioO-ists have advocated the need of spiritual

tiaiwcg h.r th;s t he :41.1 condemned and ncarce rated in prison cells They
tr:)nlv be!te';e that the rtrnottee of ' vega and meditation will enable the
prisoners to control the evils of Kanin, Aped/ia Maclb and Lob/ia which
(Iwell in human body and help in gaining control over these evil forces so as
to turn h i m a good man and a gocd citizen. This is indeed a new approach
to penolo g ical problem of crime and criminals in the Indian setting. As
rightl y observed by Mr. Justice Ram Pal Szng/i of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh,' 'human body is a temple whore the deity of A!ina and Parniatma
reside. For keeping the temple of flesh and blood, the abode of good and bad,
the sages and saints have prescribed Sad/ira by regular practice of yoga
which shall keep the human body not only healthy and strong, but also neat,
clean and pure. Healthy people would avoid crime and try to do good to the
society by establtshing peace and tranquillity Thus by the practice of) o f a
1.2

in prisons crimes can be considerably controlled and hardened criminals can

be reformed. Undoubtedly, the idea is laudable and must be adopted into
practice.t
As regards the imm;rtance at ' pra y ers in pr-.s(-,n institutions, sulhce it to
say that it provides sufficient spiritual strength to the inmates to change
their human and sectal outlook. The experiment carried out in the Tihar Jail
sometimes in 1993-94 when Vipassana meditation was introduced in a big
way. brou g ht about a big change in the living and thinking of the prisoners,
as narrated b y Shri Tarsem Komar, the then Superintendent of the ,Jail in
his bcok entitled Freedom Behind Bars.'
More recentv. the Guarat State Prison Admnistratton has launched a
'Prison Rchrm' programme to help j ail inmates to improve with Bhajans and
Yoga. The Sabarmoti and Baroda Central Jails are noino to start a
two-months 1-1; creative programme of Yoga and Bhajans which will be
cenductd by the Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya to
teach m':ral and ethical values to the jail inmates and to encourage them to
live a better l i fe. The programme has already been introduced ill
Central Jail in March, 2001. i
The programme emphasises on wa y s to bring
about a change in the att tude of the prisoners by developing their inner
streng'ths and bring about a spiritual awakening in them. Yoga, Bhakti
Singeet and 'lcknrit y a' are obviously all part of the programme.
ExDlaining the philosoph y underlying this prison reform programme,
Shri BK. Niranjana of the Bramha Kumarjs Seva Kendra, Baroda observed
that, "a person often commits a crime because of anger, hatred or a feeling
of rivalr y or revenge. In order to help such offenders, it is essential to
central their emotions. Besides, pessimistic feelings like tension, failure or
anxiet y also add to their woes. A majority of prisoners repent for their crime
and they sincerely want to mend their ways but often lack necessary
inspiration or the s p irit. It is, therefore, essential to enlighten such people by
1. After-Nir,js the . j u,le of the Deihi High Court.
2. "tNg And 1r,,i'..i, Per,cic " v' b y Hr.n'b]e Mr. Justice Lam Pal Singh Judge, High Coui't
of Madhya Pradesh, published in the Central India Law Quarterly Journal Vol 1
iiv7 p. 92-23.
3. l . 1 S 4 r?cl by t '-,:.s idea, many St ate 00'0 romeo a ha
v e made training in Yoga
compulsory for prison inmates along with religious disco,n'sis
4. Quoted in Ronia,niij-p o', V. Stete of Kiij';tuta,'0, 151)7) 2 SCC 642 16551.
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION 33

inculcating in them values of moralit y and ethics so that they get the inner
strength to distinguish between good and bad. An atmosphere of devotion,
Yoga and spiritualism will certainl y help the prisoners to become better
human beings.
It is advisable that such programmes be also launched in jails of other
States. This improvised Indian approach to prison reforms will surely bring
about a positive change in the attitude of prison inmates and help in their
rehabilitation.
It hardly needs to be stated that remedial rights of prisoners require
deeper understanding. The real problem is not with the principles, but with
their implementation. The Supreme Court and the High Courts have been
gradually exercising jurisdiction in assuring prison justice including
improvement in the quality of food and amenities, payment of appropriate
wages, necessary arrangement for health-care of prisoners etc. The States
often take the plea of financial limitations in assuring these constitutional
remedies to prison inmates but this cannot be accepted as a valid ground for
excuse else the very purpose of constitutional and human rights would be
eroded.
Like prisons, the conditions of police lock-ups is still worse. The Mulla
Committee on Jail Reforms in its Report of March 1983 pointed out
Most of the lock-ups have insufficient accommodation and
are without even such basic facilities as lavatories, light,
water and ventilation. Sanitary conditions in these lock-ups
are also utterly unsatisfactory. There seems to be no rules or
scales prescribed for the diet or bedding for those detained
in lock-ups. There are no visiting committees which would
inspect or report about the conditions prevailing in these
lock-ups. The essential requirements of law with regard to
the time-limit for keeping in custody persons arrested
without warrant are often flouted.....conditions of police.
lock-ups need to be urgently improved."
With a view to improving the plight of women prisoners in jail the
Supreme Court's directives stated in Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra,'
deserve particular mention. They are briefly stated as follows :-
1. Female prisoners and suspects should be guarded by female
guards or constables. Obviously, they should be separated from
male wards.
2. Interrogation of women should be carried out in presence of
women officials.
3. Intimation regarding arrest of a woman offender must be
immediately given to her relatives.
4. Information of such arrest must be immediately sent to the
nearest Legal Aid Committee.
Finally, it need not be stressed that efforts for rehabilitation of an
offender begin from the time he enters the prison. A comprehensive prison
programme is, therefore, essential to cater to the needs of different
categories of inmates. The prison-life should be so regulated that the
1. AIR 1983 Sc 378 (382).
384 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

prisoner is able to overcome all his psychological strains and adapts himself
as a law abiding citizen after his release from jail. It is always preferable to
place the released prisoner under the supervision and guidance of a
Probation Officer for his Alter-care and rehabilitation in the free community.
The welfare officers appointed in prisons can also play an important role in
providing adequate counselling, legal help and financial assistance to the
prisoners at the time of their release so that they are properly rehabilitated
in society.
It must be remembered that the role of prisons' has radically changed
over the years and they are no longer regarded as mere custodial
institutions, instead they have now acquired a new dimension as treatment
and training centres for those who fall foul with law. The emphasis has thus
shifted from custody to training and re-education of ofiimders and the policy
of segregation now stands substituted by community-participation of
prisoners. It has been amply realised that protection of society can be better
ensured if the offenders are corrected and refbrmed within the society itself.
To talk about treatment and training in prisons is not rhetoric; it can prove
to be real, given the zeal and determination. There is need to improve the
prison system by introducing new techniques of management and by
apprising the prison staff with their constitutional obligations towards
prisoners. This would surely end the gloom cast on our prison system and
create new awakening among the prison community. In order to ameliorate
the condition of prisoners, the Supreme Court has laid certain mandates
which would certainly go a long way in improving the working conditions of
Indian Prisons.
Judicial Mandates Regarding Prisoners & Detenues
The Supreme Court in its endeavour to ensure distributive justice in
prisons has upheld the fundamental rights of detenues and prisoners in
prison settings. The judicial mandates dealing with some of these aspects
are as follows :-
(1) The prison administrators have no power to add additional
punishment to the punishment imposed by the Court; even
though it could have been solidly imposed by that court itself,
but has in fact, not been so imposed.
(2) A prisoner sentenced to capital punishment might be kept in
separate cell only "after the sentence becomes executable". But
even in the separate cell, unless there are special circumstances,
he must be kept within the sight and sound of other prisoners
and be able to take food in their company'
(3) Prisoners 'under sentence of death' shall not be denied amenities
of games, newspapers, moving around and meeting prisoners and
visitors subject to reasonable regulation of prison management.3
(4) Solitary confinement cannot be inflicted except in extreme cases
1. At present, there are 98 Central Prisons, about 267 district prisons. 676 Sub-Jails,
24 Open Jails, 20 Special Jails and 13 Women Jails for treatment, detention and
training of prisoners in India.
2. Sunil Bzitrt-I. 1978 Cci. LI 1741 at 1795 (SC) (per Desai, J.).
3. Ibid. at 1790.
 THE PR g C') AsT7AT:cJ
385

of necessity specifically made out by the jail authorities. A

prisoner under the en tence of death can be inflicted and
imposed solitary con lii mont onl y in view of the safety of the
prisoner and the security of the prison.'
(5) If a prisoner desires loneliness for reflection and remorse, for
prover, and making peace with his maker, or opportunities for
ineetng famil y or friends such facilities should be liberally
granted.
(6) Under-trials should be accorded more relaxed conditions than
convicts. The y are not under sentence of imprisonment but only
tinder custody.
(7) An unciertrjal prisoner, when transported from the prison to the
court should not be handcuffed. In extreme cases, where the
hand-ouifb have to he put on the prisoner the escorting authority
must record reasons fbi' doing so.
(S) The hard labour has to receive a humane meaning The
punishment of rioorous imprisonment obliges the inmates to do
hard labour, but not harsh labour. The prisoner cannot demand
sift jcbs, but moo [Link] abl y be assiised congenial jobs.'
(9) The ri y ht to the soc;etv of' fellow men, parents and other family
members cannot be denied in the light of Articlo 19. However, it
is subject to search, discipline and other security reasons.5
(10 A detenue is entitled to have interview with his legal adviser
after takingae p ointment from the su p erintendent of the jail. In
case of COFEPOSA detonues a custom or jail official may watch
the intervse'.v, but he should not be within the hearing distance
of the detent:e and the legal adviser.'
11 An accused has the right to sit down in the court during the
trial es p ecially in long and arduous cases, unless it is necessary
fbr the accused to stand up (hr identification. This facility is not
again st the established practice that everyone in the court should
stand when the presiding officer enters .7
(12) Under-trials are not to be kept in leg-irons, nor can be asked
to work outside the j ai l walls. This would be in flagrant
violations of prison regulations and contrary to I.L.O.
conventions against forced labour.
(13) Ti) reduce mental tensions amon g the prisoners, the prison
anthorjties should provide for vital links between the prisoner
and his famil y by periodicall y granting parole. However, the
granting of parole for reasonable spells is subject to sufficient
safe guards ensuring their proper behaviour outside and prompt
1. 1Cr! , 1797: sse rOss Kis)icr Sin y h, 1951 Cr). U 17 (SC).
2. In:r! .i:
3. Pr y io. t'r,n.•s'r v. L I rLO: .40.'no:r,y/'r,ir),7 .iR lESS SC 1535.
4. S!111:1 Ilsii'rr . jj 1550 Cr). LJ 1059 at 1114.
5. Irod. ,,t 1 lo.
6. Fi'r,ic;s (.'ro5 .lJ.i!,'u; 1951 Cr) 1.3 305 it 31:3-11 S(').
7. .sr The Inj;:u, Express Chs,oljn,r'},, Dc'c.,nher 9. 19 1.
S. Kdir, P""!-/[ o., v. C'.'t 'j B'he- \I(1 1951 SC 999.
386 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY

return inside.'
(14) No prisoner can be personally subjected to deprivations not
necessitated by the fact of incarceration and the sentence of the
court. All other freedoms belong to him, such as to read and
write, to exercise and recreation, to meditation and chant, to
comforts like protection from extreme cold and heat, to freedom
from indignities, like compulsory nudity, forced sodomy and other
unbearable vulgarity, to movement within the prison campus
subject to requirements of discipline and security, to the minimal
joys of self-expression, to acquire skill and techniques and all
other fundamental rights tailored to the limitations of
imprisonment.'
The press should be allowed to interview prisoners sentenced to
(15)
death if they are willing to do so, unless weighty reasons to the
contrary exist.2
(16) Prior to the execution of any death sentence, the Jail
Superintendent should personally ascertain whether the sentence
of death imposed upon any of the co-accused who was due to be
hanged, has been commuted. If so, the Superintendent should
apprise the superior authorities of the matter who in turn,
should take prompt steps for bringing the matter to the notice
of the court concerned.'
(17) The commutation of the sentence of death into life imprisonment
cannot be demanded by the condemned prison as a matter of
right.
(18) A prisoner whether undertrial or convict has a right to legal
assistance and that must be made available in jails.'

Judicial Mandates for General Administration of Prisons

Besides protecting the fundamental rights of prisoners and detenues,
the Supreme Court has expressed its consciousness to eradicate the
unhealthy atmosphere in prison settings full of mal-administration and
torture. To restore distributive justice, the Court stipulated certain mandates
for the general administration of the prisons which are given below
(1) Lawyers nominated by the District Magistrate, Sessions Judge,
High Court and the Supreme Court should be given all facilities
for interviews, visits and confidential communication with
prisoners subject to discipline and security considerations. This
has roots in the vistatorial and supervisory judicial role. The
lawyers so designated shall be bound to make periodical visits
and record and report to the concerned court results which have
relevance to the legal grievance.'
(2) District Magistrates and Sessions Judges should personally or
1. Hiralal Mallick, 1977 Cr1. LJ 1921 at 1927 (SC).
2. Sand Bairn-11, 1980 Cri. U 1099 at 1113 (SC).
3. Smi. Prahha Dali v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 6.
4. llarhans Singh v. State of UP., AIR 1982 SC 849 (851).
5. Sheila Burse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 SC 378 (380).
6. Sand Baira . II, AIR 1980 SC 1579 at 1602.
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION 387

through surrogates, visit prisons in their jurisdiction and afford

effective opportunities to the prisoners for ventilating their
grievances; and should make expeditious enquiries therein and
take suitable remedial action. In appropriate cases report should
be made to the High Court to initiate, if found necessary, habeas
corpus action.'
(3) Grievance Deposit Boxes should be maintained under the orders
of the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge and such boxes
should be opened as frequently as is deemed fit and suitable
action should be taken on complaints. Access to such boxes
should be afforded to all the prisoners.
(4) Necessary steps should be taken to prepare in Hindi and other
regional languages a prisoner's Handbook and circulate copies of
it to bring legal awareness among the prison inmates. Periodical
jail-bulletins should also be introduced stating how
improvements and re-habilitative programmes are being carried
out into prison. This may create a fellowship amongst prisoners
easing their tensions. A prisoner's wall paper, ventilating their
grievances should also be introduced.'
(5) The prisoner's rights should be protected by the court by its writ
jurisdiction plus contempt power. To make this jurisdiction
viable, free legal services to the prisoners should be promoted by
professional organisations recognised by the courts, such as, Free
Legal Aid (Supreme Court) Society. The District Bar should keep
a cell for prisoner's relief The government of India and the State
governments were also recommended by the Supreme Court to
introduce comprehensive legal service programme.
(6) Large notice boards displaying the rights and responsibilities of
prisoners should be hung up in prominent places within the
prison in the language of the people.
(7) No solitary or punitive cell, no hard labour or dietary change as
painful additive, no other punishment or denial or privileges or
amenities, no transfer to other prisons with penal consequences,
should be imposed without judicial appraisal of the Sessions
Judge and where such intimation on account of emergency is
difficult, such information should be given within two days of the
action.
(8) The status based classification of prisoners in jail should be done
away with, instead a scientific classification based on the nature
of the crime committed, behaviour; character, propensities, age,
sex, education and response to jail treatment should be
introduced.'
(9) The under-trials, minors, recidivists and first offenders should be
kept separate in prisons. The political offenders who are not
guilty of violence are also to be kept separate and should not be

1. Ibid.
! 2. Section 61 of the Prisons Act.
3. Sunil Bntra.J, 1978 Cri. LI at 1778 (1791).
 CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY
388

housed in the same premises in which other criminals are kept.

It is inhuman and unreasonable to throw young boys to sex
starved prisoners or to run menial jobs for the affluent or tough
prisoners The young inmates should be separated and freed
from the adults.'
(10) The State should take steps to keep up the Standard Minimum
Rules for the treatment of prisoners recommended by the United
Nations, especially those relating to work and wages, treatment
with dignity, community contact and correctional strategies.'
(11) The Prisons' Act needs rehabilitation and the Prison Manual
total overhaul, even the Model Jail Manual being out of focus
with healing goals. A correctional-cum-orientation course is
necessary for the prison staff inculcating the constitutional
values, therapeutic approaches and tension-free management.
(12) The prison officials should rend directly to the court petitions
made to them by the prisoners from within the prison, instead
of routing them through the higher authorities.
(13) If a prison administration takes any legal step witch further
affects the personal liberty of a prisoner, it should observe the
principles of natural justice which are a part of fair procedure
established by law. If special restriction of punitive or harsh
character like solitary confinement or putting of fetters have to
be imposed for convicting security reasons, it becomes necessary
to comply with the rules of natural justice. Moreover, there
should be an appeal from prison authority to judicial organ when
such treatment is meted out.4
(14) All the State Governments in the country were directed by the
Supreme Court to convert these rulings bearing on Prison
Administration into rules and instructions forthwith so that the
violation of prisoner's freedom can be avoided.

The Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003

With the rising incidence of international crimes and Indian citizens
committing crime outside the country and aliens indulging in crimes in
India, the repatriation of convicted persons posed a serious problem before
the criminal law administrators in the absence of any specific law on this
subject. The Government of India, therefore brought out the Repatriation of
Prisoners Act, 2003 with a view to providing for transfer of certain prisoners
from India to country or place outside India and reception in India, of
certain prisoners from country or place outside India. The Act came into
force with effect from 1st January, 2004.
The Act provides that Government of any country or place outside India
in respect of which arrangement has been made by the Indian Government
for transfer of persons undergoing a sentence of imprisonment under an
order pissed by a criminal court, from India to such country or place or
1. Vijy Kumar v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1978 SC 1485.
2. Sun ii Batra-11.
3. I/ui.
4. Kishor Singh, 1981 Cri. Li 17 (22).
 THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION 389

vice-versa., shall by notification by the Central Government in the Official

Gazette that transfer his custody from India to that country or vice-versa.
Thd prisoner's record shall be transferred to such country under Section 10
of the Act. Every order of repatriation of prisoner from outside country to
India or vice-versa, shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as
possible as required by Section 16(2) of the Act.
Before concluding, it must be conceded that the great majority of
individuals sentenced to imprisonment want to return to society as
law-abiding citizens and only few are definitely anti-social and have rw
intention of changing their lawless ways after their discharge. Therefore,
order to make the prison life less abnormal and provide better opportunities
for rehabilitation of those prisoners who behave well and who are not
believed to be dangerous to their fellow-men, they should be granted regular
furloughs in order to visit their families frequently. It must be realised that
cure for crime lies not in incarceration of prisoners but only in speedy
criminal justice by ensuring certainty of punishment rather than its severity.
In this context, it would be worthwhile to quote the observations made by
Sir Robert Mark who said, "permanent and determined criminals do not
regard the present criminal justice system as sufficiently deterrent nor are
they scared of imprisonment because they are aware of the limitations of the
police, courts, prisons etc. and find crime to be highly profitable and
rewarding.' In India, professional criminals seek the protection of
resourceful patrons and taking advantage of the slow moving criminal
justice system, they more often than not, manage to escape punishment and
prisonisation.

1. Sir Robert Mark : Policy in a Perplexed Society, p. 67.