Essay on Judicial Directives for Prison Administration in India !
Besides protecting the fundamental rights of prisoners and detenues, the Supreme Court has expressed its consciousness to eradicate the unhealthy atmosphere in prison settings which are full of mal-administration and torture. With a view to restoring distributive justice, the Court stipulated certain mandates for the general administration of the prisons. They are as follows:
(1) Lawyers nominated by the District Magistrate, Sessions Judge, High Court and the Supreme Court should be given all facilities for interviews, visits and confidential communication with prisoners subject to discipline and security considerations. This has roots in the vistatorial and supervisory judicial role. The lawyers so designated shall be bound to make periodical visits and record and report to the concerned Court, the results which have relevance to the legal grievance.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(2) District Magistrates and Sessions Judges should personally or through surrogates, visit prisons within their jurisdiction and afford effective opportunities to the prisoners for ventilating their grievances; and should make expeditious enquiries therein and take suitable remedial action. In appropriate cases, report should be made to the High Court to initiate, if found necessary, habeas corpus action.
(3) Grievance Deposit Boxes should be maintained under the orders of the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge and such boxes should be opened as frequently as is deemed fit, and suitable action should be taken on complaints. Access to such boxes should be afforded to all the prisoners.
(4) Necessary steps should be taken to prepare in Hindi and other regional languages a prisoner’s Handbook and circulate copies of it to bring legal awareness among the prison inmates. Periodical jail-bulletins should also be introduced stating how improvements and re-habilitative programmes are being carried out into prison. This will inculcate a feeling of fellowmanship among the prisoners thus, easing their tensions. A prisoner’s wall paper, ventilating their grievances should also be introduced.
(5) The prisoner’s rights should be protected by the Court by its writ jurisdiction plus contempt power. To make this jurisdiction viable, free legal services to the prisoners should be promoted by professional organisations recognised by the courts, such as, Free Legal Aid (Supreme Court) Society. The District Bar should keep a cell for prisoner’s relief. The Government of India and the State Governments were also recommended by the Supreme Court to introduce comprehensive legal service programme.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(6) Large notice boards displaying the rights and responsibilities of prisoners should be hung up in prominent places within the prison in the local language.
(7) The transfer of a prisoner to other prison with penal consequences should not be ordered without judicial appraisal of the Sessions Judge and where such transfer becomes necessary as an emergency measure the information thereof must be given to the concerned court within a period of two days. The prisoners should not be subjected to solitary or punitive cells nor should they be deprived of their privileges and amenities to which they are entitled under the prison rules.
(8) The status based classification of prisoners in jail should be scrapped, instead, a scientific classification based on the nature of the crime committed, behaviour, character, propensities, age, sex, education and response to jail treatment should be introduced.
(9) The undertrials, minors, recidivists and first offenders should be kept separate in prisons. The political offenders who are not guilty of violence should also be kept separate and not be housed in the same premises in which other criminals are lodged. It is inhuman and unreasonable to throw young boys to sex starved prisoners or to run menial jobs for the affluent or tough prisoners. The young inmates should be separated and freed from the adults.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(10) The State should take steps to comply with the Standard Minimum Rules for the treatment of prisoners as recommended by the United Nations. Particularly, the rules relating to work and wages, treatment with dignity, community contact and correctional strategies should be rigidly followed.
(11) The Prison Act and the Prison Manual needs to be overhauled. A correctional-cum-orientation course is necessary for the prison staff for inculcating among them the constitutional values, therapeutic approaches and tension-free management.
(12) The petitions of the prison inmates addressed to the prison officials must be directly sent to the concerning court instead of being routed through high authorities.
(13) If the prison administration initiates any legal step which is likely to affect the personal liberty of a prisoner, it should follow the principles of natural justice which are a part of fair procedure established by law. If special restriction of punitive or harsh character such as solitary confinement or putting fetters etc. have to be imposed for security reasons, it becomes necessary for the prison officials to comply with the rules of natural justice. Moreover, there should be an appeal from prison authority to judicial organ when such treatment is meted out.
(14) All the State Governments in the country were directed by the Supreme Court to convert these rulings on prison administration into rules and instructions forthwith, so that the violation of prisoner’s freedom can be avoided.
(15) The Apex Court in Nathu alias Paras Ram v. State of Rajasthan, reiterated that where a special leave petition or appeal is filed by a prisoner from jail along with certified copy of judgment appealed from it requires immediate attention of this Court so that it may, having regard to facts and circumstances, suspend his sentence or allow his prayer for bail.
The Registry of the Court need not in every case call for records of the lower Court in a mechanical manner. Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, no doubt, permits the Registry to call for documents but the same should be done only when found to be necessary and not otherwise because the Supreme Court Rules must be read in consonance with the fundamental rights of prisoners.