The Jail as a Reformative Institution

In one line

MU asks whether a jail can be a reformative institution, and the honest answer begins by noticing that the statute governing Indian jails never claimed it could.

MU's printed stem: "How do you consider jail as a reformative institution with special reference to history of prison reforms."

How to read the question

It is not an invitation to describe prisons. It asks a question of assessment, and a good answer takes a position and defends it. The position this chapter recommends is a qualified one: a jail can be made reformative, Indian law has said so since 1920, and the statute governing Indian jails still contains nothing that would make it so.

What "reformative institution" means

Four things, and each can be tested against the Prisons Act 1894.

So on the statute the answer is plain: the Prisons Act 1894 is a custodial statute. Its object is to hold prisoners securely, in tolerable health, at low cost, and to punish breaches of discipline. Whatever is reformative in an Indian jail comes from State rules under section 59, from the Model Prison Manual, or from the courts.

The historical claim

The reformative object was declared, and the dates matter because MU asks for the history.

• 1836: the Prison Discipline Committee recommended severity and expressly rejected the reformative approach.
• 1919 to 1920: the Indian Jails Committee declared reformation and rehabilitation of offenders to be the object of prison administration, and recommended classification, separate institutions for young offenders and staff training.
• 1951 to 1952: Reckless recommended transforming jails into reformative institutions and the preparation of a Model Prison Manual.
• 1980 to 1983: the Mulla Committee recommended a National Policy on Prisons, a national prison statute and a National Prison Commission.

And the statute was never amended. The Prisons Act 1894 comes from the fourth jail commission of 1888, so the governing law embodies the policy that preceded the reformative declaration and not the declaration itself. That single sentence is the answer to MU's question about history.

What the Act does contain that helps

Be fair. Four provisions can be pressed into reformative service, and an answer that says the Act contains nothing at all is overstating.

• Section 36: the Superintendent shall provide employment for a prisoner sentenced to simple imprisonment as long as he desires it. That is work offered rather than imposed.
• Section 35(3): a prisoner whose health suffers from a class of labour must be moved to labour suited to him, which is at least individualised.
• Section 24(2): the Medical Officer records the class of labour the prisoner is fit for, which is the germ of matching a man to his work.
• Section 59: the rule-making power extends to labour, classification and the remission system, so a State that wishes to run a reformative regime has the power to make the rules for it.