CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE AND PRISON REFORMS IN INDIA

Custodial Violence and Prison Reforms in India
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp
Share on telegram

ABSTRACT

Custodial violence has emerged as a major concern of human rights and criminal law, and one of the root barriers to democracy and the growth of human well-being in contemporary societies. Indian legal system has a plethora of statutes regulating police conduct in the police custody. For example – Sections 330, 331 & 348 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter “IPC”), Sections 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter “IEA”), Section 76 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “CrPC”) and Section 29 of the Police Act, 186. All of the above-mentioned acts explicitly deal with the conduct of police and the admissibility of the confession obtained in police custody. In India, prison reforms did not arise from a social movement, but rather as a result of the worst conditions of treatment encountered by political prisoners in prison during their incarceration. They protested with the prison authorities on many occasions, and they did all they could to ensure that the rigours of prison life were alleviated and that inmates were treated humanely. In this research paper, we will look at custodial violence in India and what are the rights of the people in custody. Also, we will look for prison reforms in India in pre-independence and post-independence and some of the provisions in the contemporary world.

INTRODUCTION

Custodial Violence

Custodial brutality and the misuse of police power have become a significant human rights concern and one of the root barriers to democracy and the advancement of human well-being in contemporary societies. The word custodial violence encompasses all forms of physical and mental torture performed on a person in police custody. It is a crime against humanity and a bare breach of human rights. However, the practice of custodial abuse in developed countries such as India is more complicated and nuanced. A significant number of police abuse incidents take place not because of human aberrations, but because of systemic compulsions.[1] The type of custody may be judicial, police, or under any organization that is obliged to take care of prisoners, such as prisons, families, etc., or maybe in the possession of terrorist organizations, militant groups or insurgents, etc. The Practice has been common and unregulated since the British days when senior police officers, bureaucrats, legislators, and the judiciary have not been tacitly assisted. In recent years, the Public, Media, Legislature, Judicial, and even Human Rights Commissions have drawn attention to custodial crimes. However, judicial advocacy, extensive media coverage, steps taken by the National Human Rights Commission as well as Civil Society Intervention have shown concern for the fight against torture and the defense of human dignity.[2]

• J. Prabhavathiamma v/s The State of Kerala & Others[3]

The two serving police officers were sentenced to death by the CBI court, after hearing the case for more than a decade in Thiruvananthapuram, on the death of a scrap metal worker, whom the court claims have been murdered in custody. While sentencing the two, Judge J Nazar had said: “This is a brutal and dastardly murder by accused (number) one and two. The acts of the accused persons would adversely affect the very institution of the police department. If the faith of the people in the institution is lost, that will affect the public order and law and order, and it is a dangerous situation. Hence in the above case, we can observe that police were awarded sentenced to jail as they violated the basic right of that person. They tortured him and eventually killed him resulting in to punishment as per the IPC.

Types of Custodial Violence

There are various strategies of bringing or committing custodial abuses that are used to deliver the desired results to government agencies.[4]

1) Physiological Violence: To break the faith and conscience of the victim, the following

techniques are used: contact of a procedure in which the victim receives false information

and is psychologically tortured. By compulsion or coercion, where the victim is forced or

compelled to conduct acts or observe actions that torment him psychologically. Force the

victim to break social taboos or to be forced to endure the torture of other victims, etc. By

depriving the victim of basic needs such as water, food, sleep, and toilet facilities, which

result in disorientation and confusion. Pharmacological methods such as the use of various

drugs to promote torture of the victim to conceal the effects of torture and also as a

form of torture. Threats and humiliations aimed at people in detention or their family

members or associates.

2) Physical Violence: The techniques commonly practiced inflicting physical violence or torture to victims are as follows: disfigurement and fatigue. Trigger torture to such a degree that the survivor experiences fear of imminent death. Push victims to sleep on the damp concrete. Holding children naked in severe cold weather or under the sun at temperatures of more than 30 degrees. Scratches and cuts are made from sharp objects on various parts of the body. Use of irritants such as chilli powder, table salts, etc. is added to fragile sections or open wounds.

3) Sexual Violence: Sexual abuse has a great social and psychological effect on the minds of its victims. It can begin with verbal sexual harassment and humiliation aimed at the dignity of victims. It ends in rape or sodomy. The rapists or the perpetrators of this crime continue to invent new ways and strategies, according to their own mental aptitude and creativity, to crack the resistance of the subject easily and to fulfil their own desires.

CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE UNDER IPC

Some of the provisions set out in Chapter 16 of the Indian Criminal Code (offences against human beings) include persons in custody as well as others. Section 166 of the Code reads as follows: Whoever, being a public servant, intentionally disobeys every order of the law as to how he is to behave like such a public servant, Intending to cause, or knowing likely to cause, harm to any person by such disobedience, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a period that may extend to one year, or with a fine, or both. It must be repeated that the term injury refers to damage caused unlawfully to the body, mind, reputation, or property.

Section 167 allows for the prosecution of a public official who frames an inaccurate document with intent to inflict harm, etc. Section 220 provides for punishment for a person with lawful authority to confine persons 6/8, etc., who corruptly or maliciously confine another person, knowing that, in so doing, they are acting in contravention of the law. Section 330 of the Indian Criminal Code explicitly relates to the cause of injury to extort a confession.

Sections 340 to 348 of the Code form a community of sections dealing with unjust restraint and wrongful imprisonment and their aggravation. Section 376(2) deals with aggravated types of rape committed by police officers and other public servants, such as those in charge of hospitals and women’s institutions, etc. Sections 340 to 348 of the Code form a community of sections dealing with unjust restraint and wrongful imprisonment and their aggravation. Section 376(2) deals with aggravated types of rape committed by police officers and other public servants, such as those in charge of hospitals and women’s institutions, etc.[5]

Landmark cases

Yashwant And Others v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 4MLJ (Crl)10(SC)[6]: –

On 4 September, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of nine Maharashtra cops in the 1993 custody case and extended their prison sentences from three to seven years each. Justices NV Ramana and MM Shantanagoudar officially upheld the order and said that incidents involving the police appeared to undermine people’s confidence in the criminal justice system. Though enhancing the prison term of the policemen, the apex court said, “With great power come greater responsibility,” the police were found guilty under Section 330 of the Indian Penal Code, which includes willingly causing harm to extort confession or to force the restoration of property.

Tukaram and Another v. State of Maharashtra (Mathura Rape Case)[7]

The infamous case of Tukaram and Another v. State of Maharashtra, more widely known as the Mathura Rape Case, sparked vehemence and uncarved confrontation, leading to drastic changes in the law of rape in India. This case has witnessed the issue of the custody rape of a young girl named Mathura. The Supreme Court acquitted both the accused stating that this alleged intercourse was a “peaceful affair”. This case has stirred up great emotions and anger among the people of society. It was important to draw up a law more sensitive to the feelings of the victims, which secured their human rights and dignity. Section 376 of the IPC was also modified to make custodial rape punishable by not less than 7 years imprisonment. This section transferred the presumption of proof from the victim to the perpetrator when sexual intercourse was identified

Rights of a person under custody

Right to remain silent

• This is a principle of common law which states that the court shall not declare a person to be guilty just because he/she has refused to answer the questions raised by the police.

Right to know the reason behind the arrest

• Persons arrested must be informed of the full particulars of the offence committed and the grounds for arrest, if the arrest is being made without a warrant under Sec.50 Cr. P.C. and Article 22 of the Indian Constitution.

•Also, when a senior officer is instructed by a superior to take a person under custody, as Per, Section 55 of Cr.P.C., before that subordinate makes the arrest, he/she has to show the written order of the superior and notify him the reason behind the arrest.

• Further if the arrest is being with an issued warrant, the officer has to notify the reason for arrest and if required, show the warrant as per Section 75 of Cr.P.C.

• Timely information on the grounds of arrest serves him in many ways. It enables him to the proper court for bail, or in appropriate circumstances for a writ of habeas corpus or to make expeditious arrangement for his defense.

Information regarding the right to be released on bail

• Section-50(2) of Cr.P.C. states that if a person is arrested, he has the right to be informed that he can be released on bail by arranging sureties unless the person is arrested for a Non-Bailable Offence.

• This is very helpful for those unfortunate people who are unaware of their rights as citizens of India.

Right to be taken before a magistrate without delay

• A person shall be brought to the magistrate without any delay does not matter whether the arrest is made with a warrant or without a warrant.

• Also, the arrested person should not be kept in any other place than the police station before he is taken to the authority i.e., the magistrate.

• The arrested person is to be taken to the magistrate having the jurisdiction of the case or to the officer in charge of the police station without any delay.

• After the person is brought there, he/she has to be brought the court where the trial is going to take place without a delay and the time of journey should not exceed 24 hours.

Right of not being detained without judicial scrutiny for more than 24 hours

• The person arrested by the officer should be brought before the magistrate or the court within 24 hours.

• Also, as per section 57, a person arrested without a warrant should not be detained under custody for more than 24 hours and as per section 167, the time taken to bring the person to the court, or the magistrate should not exceed 24 hours.

• It is further strengthened by Article 22(2) of The Constitution of India.

• This right was created with a view which is discussed in the following 3 points:

i. To prevent arrest and detention to extract confessions, or as a means of compelling people to give information;

ii. To prevent police stations being used as though they were prisons- a purpose for which they are unsuitable;

iii. To afford an early recourse to a judicial officer independent of the police on all questions of bail or discharge.

Rights during a trial

• As per Article 14 of The Constitution of India “Every individual is equal before the law”.

• It also means that all the sides in a suit should be treated equally.

• In Huissainara Khatoon v/s Home Secretary, State of Bihar, the concept of the right to speedy trial was introduced which stated that “the trial must be disposed of as quickly as possible”.

Right to consult a lawyer

• Every person has the right to hire a lawyer to defend himself/herself for any crime they may have committed/not committed as per Article – 22(1) of the Indian Constitution.

• A prisoner is even allowed to consult their lawyer during interrogation as per Section – 41D of CrPC.

• Even if the criminal proceedings against a person has begun, Section 303 of CrPC allows Any alleged criminal/convict the right to defend by a lawyer of their choice.

Rights of free legal aid

• As per Article- 39A free legal aid is to be provided to the accused.

• In Khatri v/s Bihar, it was held that “the state must provide free legal aid to the poverty-stricken accused person”.

• Also, even if the accused fails to ask for legal aid himself, the right to free legal aid for the accused cannot be denied.

• In Sukh Das v/s Arunachal Pradesh, it was held that if the court fails to provide free legal aid to a poor accused person, the whole trial will be considered void.

• Also, every accused person has the right to ask the state to appoint a lawyer of the accused persons choice for free as per section 304 of CrPC.

Rights to be examined by a Medical Practitioner

• If by conducting a medical examination, a person can show his innocence and could help in dismissing the fact of commission of a crime or help in proving that the crime was committed by some other person, as per Section 54 of CrPC, he can ask for a medical examination.

• Such request is not made to cause delay or defeat justice is granted by the Court.

Right of the accused to provide any evidence

• In case of a police report or as private defense, a person has the right to bring forward a witness or a piece of evidence to prove his/her innocence.

• The accused shall be called upon to provide his defense after the completion of Prosecution of the case.

• Any written judgment will be filled.

• Until the prosecution closes its evidence, the judge may go on recording evidence and call upon the accused for cross-examination.

• The accused has the right to confront the witnesses i.e. cross examination of the witnesses as per Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

• A testimonial statement of the witness may be provided by issuing commission, if the witness fails to attend the trial as per Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act.

• Also, 25 of the Evidence Act excludes the confession statement made by the accused to the police.

Prisoners Reforms in India: Prior independence and Post-independence

In 1835, TB Macaulay founded India’s modern prison system. A committee called the Prison Discipline Committee was established in 1836, and its report was submitted in 1838. The committee proposed stricter care for the prisoners while refusing all humanitarian needs and amendments. Central Prisons were established between 1846 and 1848, following the recommendations of the Macaulay Committee. As a result, India’s current prison administration is a legacy of British rule. It is founded on the idea that even the strongest criminal code would be of no benefit to the society unless there is effective punishment machinery in place. The Second Commission of Inquiry into Jail Management and Discipline, which was formed in 1864, made similar recommendations to the 1836 Commission. Besides, the Commission made detailed recommendations for prisoner housing, as well as improvements in food, clothes, bedding, and medical care. As a result, in 1957, the Indian government formed the All-India Jail Manual Committee to draft a model prison manual. In 1960, the committee submitted its report. The Eighth Conference of the Inspector Generals of Prisons endorsed Dr. Reckless’ recommendations for prison reform in 1957. The report made strident pleas for a uniform policy and the most up-to-date methods in the areas of jail administration, probation, aftercare, juvenile, and remand homes, certified, and reformatory schools, borstals, and protective homes, and the suppression of immoral traffic, among other things. The report also recommended that the Prison Act of 1894 be amended to provide a legal foundation for correctional work Sir. Alexender Cardio was the chairman of the Indian Jail Reforms Committee, which was formed in 1919-20 to recommend prison reforms. It went to a lot of prisons and came to the conclusion that prisons should have a reforming effect on prisoners, not only a deterrent effect. The Jail Committee also suggested that, as part of prison reform, each jail’s maximum intake capacity be set, based on its shape and size.[9] The formation of jails was overseen by the Jail Reform Committee of 1946, which was established in 1946. This committee made the following recommendations: a) Child offenders should be handled differently; b) Modern prisons should be built; and c) Offenders should be classified scientifically, such as women offenders. Offenders who have a history of committing offences, as well as those who are handicapped.

Prison reforms after India’s independence

After India’s independence, the work on reforming prisons accelerated. It was decided that prisoners are human beings with access to humanitarian assistance. As a result, in 1956, the penalty of transportation (Kala-Pani) was replaced by life imprisonment.

In 1949, the Pakawasha Committee authorised the use of prisoners in the construction of roads in exchange for payment of wages. During the 1950s, the psychological and psychiatric treatment of prisoners received some attention as a measure of prison reform. “The recovery activities in the modern prison are typical of two types, namely (1) psychological and medical therapy and (2) Educational or vocational training programmes,” as G. B Vold correctly noted. Dr. W. C. Reckless, a United Nations technical specialist on crime prevention and treatment of prisoners, was invited by the Indian government to make recommendations on prison reforms in 1951. In 1957, the Committee was charged with preparing an All-India Jail Manual based on the recommendations of Dr. Walter Rackless. The government established the All-India Jails Manual Committee in 1957-59 to draught a model prison manual. The committee was asked to look at the issues with the prison administration and make recommendations for reforms that could be introduced throughout India. In 1960, the study was published. They developed not only principles for effective prison management, but also empirical criteria for the correctional care of inmates.

Mulla Committee

The government of India created the All-India Committee on Jail Reforms in 1980-83, which was chaired by Justice Anand Narain Mulla. The committee recommended that a National Prison Commission be formed as a permanent body to modernise India’s prisons. The Committee’s main goal was to review laws, rules, and regulations with the ultimate goal of protecting society and rehabilitating criminals in mind. It called for an absolute ban on the heinous practise of placing young offenders in jail with hardened criminals. To create the Indian Prisons and Correctional Service as an all-India service for the recruitment of prison officials. After-care, recovery, and probation can all be a part of the prison experience. In 1983, the Mulla Committee issued its report. The Mulla Jail Committee has made the following recommendations:

1. The prison’s conditions should be improved by providing sufficient food, clothes, hygiene, and ventilation, among other things.

2. Prison personnel should be professionally trained and organised into various cadres.

3. The media and members of the public should be able to tour prisons so that they can learn first-handed about the conditions inside and be willing to collaborate with prison authorities on reform efforts.

4. The number of undertrials housed in prisons should be held to a bare minimum, and they should be kept apart from convicted inmates.

5. The government should make every effort to devote ample personnel and money to prison reform.

Juvenile Justice Act, 1986:

A Juvenile Justice Act was passed in 1986, and observation homes, special homes, and juvenile homes were created, where abused children and juvenile delinquents could be admitted. Juvenile delinquents could not be charged alongside non-juvenile delinquent offenders, and they could not be held in prison. Many rules were made on the types of directives that could be issued against juvenile offenders and what could not be issued. A boy under the age of 16 and a girl under the age of 18 are considered juveniles under this Act. Committee of Krishna Iyer: The Justice Krishna Iyer Committee was formed by the Indian government in 1987 to conduct a report on the condition of women prisoners in India. It has suggested that more women be enlisted in the police force because of their specific role in dealing with female and child offenders.

Reforms in Prisons:

Nowadays, being imprisoned does not imply breaking stones or grinding chakkies, but the meaning has evolved. Without a doubt, the current state of the prison system is much superior to that of the past, but there is still more work to be done in the area of prison improvements to ensure that inmates are treated humanely. To increase the performance of these facilities, the following improvements in prison administration are suggested:

1) Maintaining a prison in good working order is a costly endeavour. It is, in effect, a financial burden on the general public. As a result, the criminal can only be incarcerated for the duration that is necessary for their custody. Long-term sentences would be abolished, resulting in a reduction in the amount of money spent in prison. It is also proposed that where the period of incarceration extends one year, the prisoner be given parole of one month or so per year to allow him to return to his hometown and meet his relatives. This will assist in his recovery, and upon his release, he will be able to face the outside world with confidence, casting away the stigma that has been attached to him as a result of his incarceration.

2) Women in prison should be handled better and have more chances to see their children. This will keep them mentally fit and help them react to treatment methods better. Women who are victims of sex crimes should be viewed with compassion, and their illegitimate children should be given a chance to live a normal life. Women inmates should be permitted to see their sons and daughters on a more regular basis, with a more lenient approach in the case of under-trial detainees.[10] Only female police officers or jail administrators can deal with female inmates. The concept of establishing separate women’s prisons that are only for women. However, considering the high costs involved in the process, 10 prisoners does not seem to be feasible.

3) The prisoners belonging to the peasant class should be allowed an opportunity to go to their fields during harvesting season on a temporary ‘ticket on leave’ so that they can look after their agriculture. This would enable them to keep in touch with their occupation and provide means of living to the other members of their family. Thus, the unity of family life can be maintained which would help the rehabilitation of the prisoner after his release from jail.

4) Though the prisoners are allowed to meet their close relatives at a fixed time yet there is further need to allow them certain privacy during such meetings. The meeting under the supervision of prison guards is really embarrassing for inmates as well as the visitors and many thoughts on both sides remain unexpressed for want of privacy. The rights of prisoners to communicate and meet their friends, family, relatives and legal advisers should not be restricted beyond a particular limit.

5) The present system of limiting the scope of festivals and other ceremonial occasions merely to delicious dishes for inmates needs to be changed. These auspicious days and festivals should be celebrated through rejoicings and other meaningful programmes so that the prisoners can at least momentarily forget that they are leading a fettered life.

6) The existing rules to the restrictions and scrutiny of postal mail of inmates should be liberalised. This shall infuse trust and faith among inmates for the prison officials.

7) The prison legislation should make a provision for remedy of compensation to the prisoner who are wrongfully detained or suffer injuries 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 prisoners’ right to justice and fair treatment and requires prison officials to initiate measures so that prisoners’ basic rights are not violated and they are not subjected to harassment and inhuman conditions of living.[11]

8) 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 higher or advanced studies. Women prisoners should be provided training in tailoring, doll making, embroidery, etc. The prisoners who are well educated should not be subjected to rigorous imprisonment, instead, they should be engaged in some mental cum manual work.[12]

9) 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 inferior complex and save them from being ridiculed as convicts. Many non-penal institutions such as Seva Sadans, Nari Niketans, and Reformation Houses are at work in different places in India to take up the arduous task of After Care and rehabilitation of criminals.

10) There is dire need to bring about a change in the public attitude towards the prison institutions and their management. This is possible through an intensive publicity programmes using the media of 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 enter into prison so that their misunderstanding about prison administration may be cleared. In Prabhu Dutta v. Union of India, the petitioner a newspaper, 11 correspondents filed a petition to interview two condemned prisoners Ranga and Billa for which permission was refused to herby Tihar Jail authorities. The Supreme Court allowed the interview to uphold the right of the press to have access to prison inmates.

11) Last but not the least, the existing Prison Act, 1894 which is more than a century old, needs to be thoroughly revised and even re-stated because of the changed socio-economic and political conditions of India over the years. Many of the provisions of this Act have become obsolete and redundant. The Supreme Court, in its landmark decision in Ramamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka[13] , has identified nine major problems which need immediate attention for implementing prison reforms.

The court observed that the present prison system is affected with major problems of;

a) Overcrowding

b) Delay in trial

c) Torture and ill-treatment

d) Neglect of health and hygiene

e) Insufficient food and inadequate clothing

f) Prison vices

g) Deficiency in communication

h) Streamlining of jail visits and

i) Management of open-air prisons.

Reform in Prison Labour Scheme:

The aims of ‘prison labour’ have changed over the years. The Indian Jail Reforms Committee of 1919-20 proposed that the primary purpose of prison labour be the prevention of more crime by the reformation of prisoners, for which they should be taught modern methods of work and be able to earn a living wage upon release. The other goals were to keep offenders completely involved in order to avoid mental harm and to allow them to contribute to the expense of their upkeep. Prisoners were given jobs based on their fitness, the duration of their sentence, previous knowledge of a profession, and the trade that would most likely offer a living wage upon release. Punitive labour, such as manual oil extraction, was eliminated after the independence, and more useful programmes to train criminals as technicians were added. Over the last three decades, some effort has been made to train inmates, often drawn from the ranks of agriculturists, in modern agricultural and animal husbandry methods, but due to a lack of land, only minimal progress has been made. Payment of wages to inmates was originally resisted on the grounds that they were already a financial burden on the government. Gradually, the need for some kind of encouragement for prisoners became apparent, and it was decided that a monetary reward would stimulate interest in work and provide the required incentive, particularly if the prisoner could spend the earnings on himself or his family. Following freedom, inmates in some open prisons are paid market salaries, from which they pay the State their operating costs. There is an increasing awareness that a more liberal wage structure will provide more opportunities for higher and better output. Maharashtra was the first state to enact a systematic wage scheme in 1949. “Reform and rehabilitation is a basic policy of criminal law, while forced manual labour from the prisoner is covered under Art. 23 of the Constitution,” the Supreme Court said in State of Gujarat & another Vs. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat (AIR 1998SC 3164). Since deducting the costs spent on them, inmates must be paid minimum wages for their labour.”

Reformation of Under-trial Prisoner:

Under the statute, pre-trial inmates are not expected to work, but staying unemployed is not only in their best interests but also a national waste. Under-trial inmates were expected to work by persuasion rather than intimidation, and if they wished to work, they were to be paid. However, when they want to serve, they are assigned to prison services and are given a labouring diet and no pay in exchange. The criminal law recently modified to allow for the time of incarceration while awaiting trial to be counted against the term of imprisonment. This will help to relieve some of the sufferings, but it will not by itself, inspire people who are going through tough times to volunteer for work. A significant number of people who are awaiting trial are held in jail for lengthy periods because they cannot afford to hire a lawyer to defend them. The government has been paying attention to this issue in recent years, and attempts are being made to provide free legal help to the vulnerable. If this facility is applied to a significant number of vulnerable people, it would not only result in a reduction in the time that people are detained while awaiting trial, but it could also result in acquittal in certain cases.

Reformation of Women Prisoners:

Women in prison should be handled better and have more chances to see their children. This will keep them mentally fit and help them react to treatment methods better. In the case of female delinquents, a liberal correctional and educational programme appears to be needed. Women who are victims of sex crimes, in particular, should be viewed with compassion, and their illegitimate children should be given a chance to live a normal life. The concept of having separate prisons for women offers a free space in which they can obtain special care. Yarwada, Maharashtra’s first women’s prison, was built. The fact that an inmate has adhered to strict prison discipline does not mean that he or she has genuinely turned into a law-abiding citizen.[14]

CONCLUSION

Police are the safeguards in society that keep the morals and foundations intact and functioning as we move towards progress and development. Such duty must, however, be conducted in a humanitarian manner and by lawful means and method but the current ways in which the police exercise authority is prima facie opposed to human rights and human dignity. Despite so much awareness about violations of human rights by the police, there are still frequent instances of such violations. Further addressing the problem of custodial violence against vulnerable sections, such as women, children, and many other underprivileged sections is much more urgent and vital. We can therefore conclude by saying that human rights are available to every individual, even if he or she is a criminal.

Finally, it should not be forgotten that prison management and inmate rehabilitation are just a small part of the larger picture of social recovery. The jail organisation cannot successfully reform the inmates on its own. It can only do its best to set the prisoners free; however, these attempts can be successful only if our economics, education, social institutions, and values are all properly organised in the sense of the human establishment’s learning.

  1. (http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-55-custodial-violence-indian-perspective, n.d.)

  2. (https://nhrc.nic.in/press-release/nhrcs-recommendations-custodial-justice, n.d.)

  3. (MANU/KE/0555/2007)

  4. (nhrc.nic.in/acts-&-rules)

  5. (https://www.indiacode.nic.in)

  6. (AIR 2018 SC 4067)

  7. (AIR 1979 SC185)

  8. (United nation human right at https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/detentionorimprisonment.aspx, n.d.)

  9. (Criminology and Penology book of Dr. N. V. Paranjape. P-281 )

  10. (Francis Coralie Mullin V. Union Territory Delhi, AIR 2981 SC 746)

  11. (Sanjay Suri V. Delhi Administration, (1988) Cr. LJ 705)

  12. (Mohd. Gaisuddin V. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 1925)

  13. ( (1997) 2 SCC 642)

  14. (Jyotsna Shah: Studies in Criminology & Probation Services in India)

Prison Reforms in India
This research paper has been written by Adarsh Kashyap. He is a second year law student at Gujarat National Law University.