The Prison Response

In one line

Indian prisons are governed by a statute of 1894, hold more people awaiting trial than serving sentences, and their conditions are regulated chiefly by decisions of the Supreme Court under article 21.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: the prison response is governed by the Prisons Act 1894 and State prison manuals, with a Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 circulated by the Central Government for adoption by the States; the principal constitutional development is that a convict is not denuded of all fundamental rights, which Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration established; and the defining Indian fact is the proportion of the prison population who are undertrials.

The legal framework

The Prisons Act 1894, which is a statute about custody and discipline rather than about correction, and the State prison manuals made under it, which govern classification, work, remission, visits and discipline.

Prisons are a State subject, so the position differs between States and no national standard is enforceable as such.

The Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023, circulated by the Central Government to replace the 1894 Act, deals with the classification and segregation of prisoners, security, technology in prison administration, parole and furlough, the treatment of women and transgender prisoners, and after-care and rehabilitation. It is a model for States to adopt, so its effect depends on adoption by each State legislature, and a student should say so rather than describing it as the law.

The constitutional position

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 494.

Facts. Two petitions were heard together. A convict under sentence of death challenged his solitary confinement, contending that the provision of the Prisons Act requiring a prisoner under sentence of death to be confined in a cell apart from all other prisoners and placed under the charge of a guard does not authorise solitary confinement and that the jail authorities could not impose such punishment under the guise of giving effect to it. A second petitioner challenged the provision empowering the Superintendent to confine a prisoner in irons as conferring unguided power.

Held. The Court dismissed the petitions but read both provisions down severely. The provision on confinement of a prisoner under sentence of death does not empower the prison authorities to impose solitary confinement on him, and even jail discipline inhibits solitary confinement as a punishment. Convicts are not by reason of conviction denuded of all fundamental rights. On bar fetters, they may be imposed only after considering the particular characteristics of the individual prisoner, routine reasons will not do, reasons must be recorded in the Superintendent's journal and the prisoner's history ticket in language the prisoner can understand, and the case must be reviewed.