2. IMPRISONMENT
Having had origins in a criminal justice system that
was designed in colonial times for the colonial
purposes of instilling fear and keeping control, in
its present incarnation Indian prisons still have
many features of being essentially products of
those British colonial motivations and rationales
that underlay the processes for administering
India.
3. IMPRISONMENT
To meet above all else the (colonial)
agenda of law and order through
control the entire structure of criminal
justice was meticulously prepared to
be effective for this end alone.
4. IMPRISONMENT
The main rule book for criminal offences and their
corresponding punishments today is the Indian
Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860) drafted and passed
when the objective of punishment was as
suggested above clearly stated by the authors of
the Code as ‘instilling fear’ and exercising control
over native populations.
5. IMPRISONMENT
And year after year thereafter even when
India shook off the colonial yoke the
State (both central and provincial) has
simply added more and more offences to
the list as and when circumstances
demanded.
6. IMPRISONMENT
Unfortunately the ethos of the present
prison administration still remains
rooted in the old motivations even
when two dramatic changes have
occurred that should affect this
situation:
7. IMPRISONMENT
(a) India is now a sovereign
democratic republic with a
constitution that spells out
fundamental rights and duties for all
citizens, and
8. IMPRISONMENT
(b) a voluntarily set up world organisation
(UN) exists that has provided universal
standards and guidelines and monitoring
mechanisms for ensuring that institutions
of the state like prisons, adhere to
humane and ethical standards.
9. IMPRISONMENT
Access to equal and impartial justice
in all its manifestations is high on the
agenda for all UN bodies that deal with
human rights and justice systems
throughout the world.
10. IMPRISONMENT
Standards and guidelines have been in place for
prison management for sometime now and as
aberrations are highlighted by reform groups more
formulae and courses of action are prepared
collectively by international experts to address
shortcomings in the criminal justice systems of
many regions so that they are commensurate with
the ultimate goal of justice for all.
11. IMPRISONMENT
One example of a neglected area that has
been overlooked thus far even at the
international level has been the treatment
of vulnerable groups at the hands of the
justice machinery and the penal systems
around the world.
12. IMPRISONMENT
Recently in 2010 the General Assembly of the UN
adopted the Rules for the Treatment of Women
Prisoners and Non-custodial measures for Women
(known now as the Bangkok Rules). Intended as
detailed guidelines for addressing the treatment
and needs of this one vulnerable group in the
criminal justice it also serves as an example of the
need for further investigations into other groups
with special needs (children, the elderly, mentally
ill).
13. IMPRISONMENT
Without going into all the principles and
theories that underlie the aims and
purposes of punishment and its most
prevalent form, imprisonment
(deterrence, retribution, restoration, etc.)
it is clear that the prison has failed to
deliver what the State’s criminal justice
system professes as its primary goal, i.e.
social equilibrium.
14. IMPRISONMENT
What it does achieve is a sense of fear, a
feeling of horror and multifarious ways of
hoodwinking the state, all of which make
no contribution to social equilibrium.
15. IMPRISONMENT
In fact most of the findings of research
bodies arrive at some simple
conclusions: (i) that prisons damage
people, albeit in different ways and
degrees and (ii) that prisons serve only a
very limited purpose in the quest for
keeping society safe as less than 5% of
those inside are a threat to society.
16. IMPRISONMENT
Clearly from a time when prison was
considered necessary and useful (albeit
for vested interests and primarily to
warehouse undesirables) society and the
state have reached a point when the
institution’s glaring shortcomings need
to be seriously reviewed, reanalysed,
revisited and reassessed on several
fronts.
17. IMPRISONMENT
But who would do this review and
reassessment of shortcomings? There
are no mechanisms that have a role as
independent monitoring bodies that will
inspect places of detention to focus on
what exists and what does not, or even to
prevent violations of human rights or
cruelty and torture.
18. IMPRISONMENT
The National Human Rights Commission
of India does have a mandate that gives it
the authority to enter and inspect
institutions and highlight violations. But
the role for action is still limited.
19. IMPRISONMENT
The importance of and openness of
closed institutions can never be
emphasised enough. How often do we
hear quotes suggesting that the degree of
civilization on a society can be gleaned
from looking inside its prisons?
20. IMPRISONMENT
“…….no one who has been inside a prison, if only
for a day, can ever forget the feeling. Time stops. A
note of attenuated panic, of watchful paranoia,
anxiety and boredom and fear mixed into a kind of
enveloping fog, covering the guards as well as the
guarded…. The scale and brutality of our prisons
are the moral scandal of American life…” Adam
Gopnic - The Caging of America Why do we lock up
so many people? The New Yorker, 30 January 2012
21. IMPRISONMENT
Independent India as a republic is a
federal state system with a Central
government and 29 State Governments
and 7 Union Territories. States are further
subdivided into districts (671 in all) which
in turn are subdivided into subdivisions,
or directly into the next unit of
administration taluks or tehsils.
22. IMPRISONMENT
The management and administration of
prisons is a State subject under the State
List (consisting of 61 items) in Part XI of
the Constitution. Prisons are governed by
the Prisons Act of 1894 and Prison
Manuals the most important of which date
back to British India.
23. IMPRISONMENT
Updated rules and manuals supplement
the above regulations. Day to day
administration is carried out mainly
through these rules and the Prisoners’
Act of 1900 and the Transfer of Prisoners
Act 1950.
24. IMPRISONMENT
There are 1,394 prisons in India most of them
positioned and structured more or less as they
were in colonial India. Prisons are all called ‘jails’
in India unlike the UK where they are called
‘prisons,’ or the USA where they are ‘prisons’,
penitentiaries’, ‘jails’, and ‘houses of corrections’
depending on the nomenclature used in different
States for the different categories of prisons.
25. IMPRISONMENT
Indian Jails fall into 8 categories or types and are
located squarely within the administrative units
described above. These are commonly known as
Central Jails (127), District Jails (340) and Sub Jails
(806). Other types are dedicated institutions for
specific purposes: Women’s jails (20), Special Jails
(31), Open Jails (46), Borstal Schools (21) and
others.
26. IMPRISONMENT
The capacity of these jails is as follows: Type Total
Capacity Central Jails (123) 46,648 District Jails
(333) 1,24,768 Sub Jails (806) 8,474 Women’s Jails
(19) 4,817 Open Jails (44) 4,028 Borstal Schools
(21) 2,438 Special Jails (30) 10,331 Other Jails (3)
32
27. Problems With Jails in India
Thirty years ago the All India Committee on Jail
Reforms delineated the most fundamental problem
areas relating to Indian prisons. It set out to
address the issue of reform under several different
‘heads’ or subjects usually covered by most
‘Standards’ documents that predate it, but with the
requisite contextual features added. Broadly these
‘heads’ were:
28. Problems With Jails in India
● Prison buildings • Living Conditions • Diet •
Sanitation and hygiene • Clothing and bedding
equipment • Letters and contact with the
outside world • Medical and physical facilities
Security and Discipline • Diversification and
Classification • Typology of crime • Treatment
of Prisoners • Work Programmes • Agriculture
29. Problems With Jails in India
Under-trials and other un-convicted prisoners •
Women • Children • Young Offenders • Lifers •
Death row prisoners • Sub Jails • Open prisons •
System of remission, leave and pre release •
Community Involvement in Corrections
32. IMPRISONMENT OF LIFE
● In Dalbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 1384,
Supreme court came to the conclusion that `life imprisonment'
means imprisonment for the whole of the man's life. But in
practice it amounts to incarceration for a period between 10 to
14 years. (Quoted in State of Haryana Vs Jagdish 2010 SC)
● Sangeet & Anr vs State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2012
33. IMPRISONMENT OF LIFE
● Before 1955, the words “transportation for life” was used. The
Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 1955 (Act No. 26
of 1955) substituted the words “Imprisonment for life” in place
of “transportation for life”.
● The general public thinks that imprisonment for life means only
14 years imprisonment, and the convict shall be released as
soon as the 14 years period is lapsed. It is wrong presumption
34. IMPRISONMENT OF LIFE
● Actually, the punishment under the Imprisonment for Life means
imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted
person’s natural life. During the British Rule, the convicts under
“transportation for life” was used to be deported to the Andamans and
other Colonies and were taken for ever from the society of all who
were acquainted with him.
35. IMPRISONMENT OF LIFE
● After independence, such system was stopped. Now the convicts
under imprisonment for life are imprisoned in the Prisons of the States
concerned. The life convict is not entitled to automatic release on
completion of fourteen years’ imprisonment, unless on special
occasions, the Government may pass an order considering the good
behaviour and conduct of the convict remitting the balance of
imprisonment for life.
36. IMPRISONMENT
● (i) Rigorous Imprisonment i.e. with Hard Labour:
● There are certain offences defined in the Indian Penal Code, for which
rigorous imprisonment may be imposed by the Courts. Examples:
House- trespass under Section 449 of IPC; fabricating false evidence
with intent to procure conviction of an offence which is capital by the
Code (Sec. 194); etc.
37. IMPRISONMENT
● For such offences, rigorous imprisonment may be imposed. In rigorous imprisonment,
the convicted person is put to do hard labour such as digging earth, cutting stones,
agriculture, grinding corn, drawing water, carpentry, etc. The Supreme Court suggested
that the offenders imposed hard labour should be paid minimum wages.
● The trial Court, while disposing Bombay Blast Case (2007), sentenced Sanjay Putt, a
Bollywood Hero, for rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years. Until the Supreme
Court gave the Bail, Sanjay Dutt did carpentry work for 30 days and earned Rs. 39/-
during that period.
38. IMPRISONMENT
● While disposing the case Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1980 SC 1675), the
Supreme Court observed: “Hard labour in Sec. 53 has to receive a humane meaning.
● A girl student or a male weakling sentenced to rigorous imprisonment may not be
forced to break stones for nine hours a day. The prisoner cannot demand soft jobs but
may reasonably be assigned congenial jobs. Sense and sympathy are not enemies of
penal asylums.”
39. IMPRISONMENT
● This punishment is imposed for the lighter offences. Examples: public
servant unlawfully engaging in trade or unlawfully buying or bidding for
property (Sections 168-169); absconding to avoid service of summons or
other proceedings, or not attending in obedience to an order from a public
servant (Sections 172-174); to obstruct traffic or cause public nuisance; eve-
teasing, drunken brawls, etc.; refusing oath when duly required to take oath
by a public servant (Section 178); wrongful restraint (Sec. 341); defamation
(Sec. 500) etc.
40. ● Solitary Confinement:
● Section 73 of the Code empowers the Courts to impose solitary
confinement to certain persons and in relation to certain offences.
This punishment is also part of the imprisonment.
● A harsh and hardened convict may be confined in a separate cell to
correct his conduct. He is put separately without intercourse with
other prisoners. All connections are severed with other world.
41. The object of this punishment is to reform the hardened and habitual offender and in order to experience
him with loneliness. There are certain restrictions in imposing solitary confinement. They are:—
(a) Solitary confinement should not exceed three months of the whole term of imprisonment.
(b) . It cannot be awarded where imprisonment is not part of the substantive sentence.
(c) It cannot be awarded where imprisonment is in lieu of fine.
(d) It cannot also be awarded for the whole term of imprisonment. Further according to Section 73, the
following scale shall be adhered,—
42. (i) Time not exceeding one month if the term of imprisonment shall not exceed six months;
(ii) A time not exceeding two months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed six months and shall not
exceed one year;
(iii) A time not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed one year.
In several European countries, including Great Britain, this punishment was repealed.
43. Section 74 limits the solitary confinement. If it is imposed for a long time, it
adversely affects on human beings and creates mental derangement.
This Section says that solitary confinement shall in no case exceed fourteen days
at a time with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less
duration than such periods, and when the imprisonment awarded shall exceed
three months, such confinement shall not exceed seven days in any one month of
the whole imprisonment awarded, with intervals between the periods of solitary
confinement of not less duration than such periods.
44. Forfeiture of Property:
“Forfeiture” is the divestiture of specific property without compensation in consequence of some default or
act of forbidden by law. The Courts may order for forfeiture of property of the accused in certain
occasions.
In white collar crimes, and where a Government employee or any private person accumulates black
money and black assets, and there is no genuine answer and proof for such money and properties with
such person, the Court may award for forfeiture of property.
In cases of smugglers, goondas, anti-national personalities, etc., the Government or the Courts are
empowered to forfeiture of property of such anti-social elements.
45. Fine:
The Courts may impose fine along with or without imprisonment. The Indian Penal Code mentions
the punishment of fine for several offences, generally with or without imprisonment.
Amount of fine:
According to Section 63, where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the amount of
fine to which the offender is liable is unlimited, but shall not be excessive.
46. Sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine:
According to Section 64, in every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment as well as fine, in
which the offender is sentenced to a fine, whether with or without imprisonment, and in every case of an
offence punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with fine only, in which the offender is sentenced to a
fine, it shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct by the sentence that, in
default of payment of the fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term, which
imprisonment shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to
which he may be liable under a commutation of a sentence.
47. Limit to imprisonment if fine imposed is not paid:
Section 65 lays down that the term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned in
default of payment of a fine shall not exceed one- fourth of the term of imprisonment which is the
maximum fixed for the offence, if the offence be punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.
48. Description of imprisonment for non-payment of fine:
Section 66 lies down that the imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of payment of
a fine may be of any description to which the offender might have been sentenced for the
offence.
49. Imprisonment for non-payment of fine when offence punishable with fine only:
According to Section 67, if the offence be punishable with fine only, the imprisonment which
the Court imposes in default of payment of the fine shall be simple, and the term for which
the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned, in default of payment of fine, shall not
exceed the following scale,—
When the fine shall not exceed fifty rupees – the term of imprisonment shall not exceed two
months;
50. Termination of imprisonment on payment of fine:
According to Section 68, whenever the fine is paid the imprisonment shall be terminated
forthwith.
According to Section 69, if, before the expiration of the term of imprisonment fixed in default
of payment, such a proportion of the fine be paid or levied that the term of imprisonment
suffered in default of payment is not less than proportional to the part of the fine still unpaid,
the imprisonment shall terminate.
