Opinion - News Analysis   

Prison reforms and some fundamentals

The government recently announced a Rs. 4,000-crore package for prison reforms as part of the National Prison Policy being implemented by the Centre. This policy will redefine prisons as correctional homes. News reports have mentioned that State governments will be encouraged to sell off prisons situated in “prime areas” to generate funds to create modern buildings elsewhere. These buildings will have cells with cushioned beds and clean toilets, closed-circuit TV cameras, video-conferencing facilities, and space for yoga, sports and extra-curricular activities. The plan includes building 200 prisons to add to the 1,300 that exist in the country.

The situation of the prisons in our country came into focus in the early 1980s, when as part of the National Police Commission K.F. Rustomji highlighted prison conditions and the plight of undertrial prisoners. Activists such as Sheela Barse filed public interest litigation petitions on custodial conditions, and judges like Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer passed landmark judgments. These steps brought much needed relief to thousands of undertrials, who were released on personal bond or simply discharged. However, the situation on the ground seems to get worse by the day.

The government has set up working groups, committees and commissions to investigate the issue and offer solutions. The more important among them were the Justice Mulla Committee Report on Prison Reforms (1982-83) and the Justice Krishna Iyer Committee on Women Prisoners (1986-87). These reports have, by far, given the most comprehensive accounts of what ails our prisons, and suggested a slew of measures. The latest Draft National Policy on Prison Reforms and Correctional Administration, 2007, prepared by the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D), is but old wine in a new bottle.

The draft policy includes suggestions for some welcome changes to the Prisons Act of 1894. These include the introduction of a provision to provide for aftercare and rehabilitation services and the appointment of officers to provide legal aid for prisoners. Also envisaged are the establishment of a Research and Development wing, and financial assistance to non-governmental organisations working for the rehabilitation of prisoners and community-based alternatives to imprisonment for offenders convicted for relatively minor offences.

However, there are some rather disconcerting suggestions in the report. For example, the committee has recommended that prisoners sentenced to simple imprisonment should be compulsorily made to work. This suggestion de facto eliminates the difference between simple and rigorous imprisonment, and goes against the principle of deterrence, one of the foundations of modern criminal jurisprudence. The prison administration should instead create educational and vocational training avenues for undertrial prisoners and prisoners sentenced to simple imprisonment. Another suggestion of the committee is to amend Section 305-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, making it mandatory for the trial judge to award the maximum sentence in cases where the accused contests the charge levelled against him or her. This is an outrageous suggestion that goes against all principles of fair trial, as set out by Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution.

The committee has suggested awarding compensation to victims of crimes from the wages earned by prisoners serving rigorous imprisonment. Deductions from the wages of a prisoner after he or she has been sentenced to imprisonment (as punishment) amounts to punishing the person twice over — a case of double jeopardy. In countries across the world where a system of victim compensation exists, it is awarded out of state funds (as in Australia), and not by pinching the pocket of the prisoner, who in any case gets a pittance as wages in prison.

A worrying suggestion of the committee is the inclusion of senior police officers in prison administration to elicit the cooperation of the police. This is in keeping with the recent trend of deputing Indian Police Service officers in prison departments, instead of the earlier practice of prison cadre officers leading their departments. Ensuring the cooperation of the police cannot be a ground for the inclusion of police officers in prison administration. As with the police or the judiciary, correctional services form a specialised area that requires training and qualification. Each cannot be replaced by the other: they have very specific roles and functions based on the principle of separation of powers, a foundation of any functioning democracy.

In seeking to improve prison conditions, we have to first address the low personnel- population ratio compared to countries that have more effective justice delivery systems. Governments tend to refuse to fill up vacancies and augment the staff strength across criminal justice wings. We need to create departments of correctional services, instead of just renaming prisons as correctional homes. We need to give financial and infrastructure support to voluntary organisations working on the rights, welfare and rehabilitation of custodialised populations. Cosmetic surgery alone will not solve problems. Let us not get seduced by cushioned beds, western toilets and single cell facilities to house our prisoners, in the name of prison reform.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Don’t communalise anti-terror fight
Excesses of the penal system
India and the world of tomorrow
Caucasus war & Russia’s Middle East policy
Prison reforms and some fundamentals
What Sarah Palin’s earrings tell us
Corrections and clarifications
Secular nationalism
Countering terror
Singur stalemate

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu