CHAPTER - II

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF PRISON SYSTEM IN INDIA

Prison today is the core of the worlds‟ penal systems; it is the norm of punishment

in men‟s minds; it is at the heart of all present criminal law systems. Yet its origins were

makeshift, its operation unsatisfactory and its future lacks promise.1

The word „Prison‟ and „Gaol‟ are derived from the Latin words Prensio and

Gaviola which mean to „Seize and Cage‟2 respectively. The Oxford English Dictionary

defines Prison as, “a place properly arranged and equipped for the reception of persons

who by legal process are committed to it for safe custody while awaiting trial or

punishment.”3 Traditionally, prison is defined as a place in which persons are kept in

custody pending trial, and where they are confined as punishment after conviction.

During the late 1700‟s, the British reformer John Howard toured Europe to

observe prison conditions. His book, „The State of the Prisons in England and Wales‟

(1777) influenced the passage of a law that led to the construction of the first British

prisons designed partly for reform. These prisons attempted to make their inmates feel

penitent (sorry for doing wrong) and became known as penitentiaries. In 1787, a group of

influential Philadelphians, mostly Quakers, formed the Philadelphia Society for

alleviating the miseries of public prisons (now the Pennsylvania Prison Society). They

believed that some criminals could be reformed through hard work and meditation. The

Quakers urged that dangerous criminals be held separately from nonviolent offenders and

1
N. Morris, Criminology in Transition , University of Chicago Press, Chicogo, 1965, p.267
2
Jonna Kelly, When the Gates Shut, Longman, London, 1967, p.1
3
The Oxford English Dictionary, Vol VIII, Oxford University Press, Calcutta, 1979, p.1385

8
men and women prisoners be kept apart. These ideas became known as the Pennsylvania

System, and were put into practice in 1790, at Philadelphia‟s Walnut Street Jail. This

prison is considered the first prison in the United States. The Pennsylvania System was

the first attempt to rehabilitate criminals by classifying and separating them on the basis

of their crimes. As a result, the most dangerous inmates spent all their time alone in their

cells. In time, however, the system failed, chiefly because overcrowding made such

separation impossible.

During the eighteenth century, New York prison officials developed two major

systems of prison organization - the Auburn System and the Elmira System. The Auburn

System, introduced at Auburn (N.Y.) Prison in 1821, became widely adopted. Under this

system, prisoners stayed in solitary confinement at night and worked together during the

day. The system emphasized silence. Prisoners could not speak to, or even look at one

another. Prison officials hoped that this silence and isolation would cause inmates to

think about their crimes and reform. They believed that the prisoners‟ spirit must be

broken before reform could take place. However, the system failed partly because the

rigid rules and isolation drove inmates insane.

Thus practical beginning of imprisonment as the normal method of punishing

criminals came in the last quarter of the eighteenth century, the way having been

prepared by the humanitarianism of the French philosophers, the English and American

Quakers. Hence the transition from corporal punishment to prison as punishment took

place in the eighteenth century.

9
2.1. Prison Administration in India

2.1.1. Ancient Period

The historical account of jails in our country can be traced back to the epic age.

References of jails are there in the Mahabharata. In this mythological period, there were

eighteen important state officials and one of them was the head of the institution of jail

(Karagriha). Manusmriti talks about imprisonment as one method of punishment along

with others like fine, corporal punishment and externment.4 Artha Shastra by Chanakya

prescribes incarceration as the chief mode of punishment besides fine.5

As early as the Vedic age, punishment was considered a matter of great social

significance and it was considered that punishment removed the guilt of misdeed and the

delinquent was then freed from the wrong he had done.6 The early Vedic period followed

Rig Veda; the later Vedic period followed the combination of all four Vedas, while the

late Vedic period was dominated by the Vedang smriti. Early Vedic period was

dominated by Aryans who had emigrated from Tibet plateaus. These communities used

to administer the justice system at the family level. The family was based on the

Patriarchal system.7

The administering justice was based on the hierarchical basis viz. village (gram);

community (Vis); people (Jana) and Country (Rashtra). The Rashtra was normally ruled

by the king (Rajan). Kingship was normally hereditary. This system was known as

Monarchy. The main duties of the monarchical system were to protect the life and

4
Vidya Bhusan, Prison Administration in India, S. Chand Publication, Delhi, 1970, p.2
5
Sharda Prasad , Criminal Justice Reforms, Indian Journal of Criminology, Volume 33 (1&2), July 2005
6
A.N.Chaturvedi, Rights of Accused under Indian Constitution, Universal Law Publishing Co., 1994, p.24
7
SyklaDas, Crime and Punishment in Ancient India, Abhinar Publications, New Delhi, 1977, pp.55,56

10
property of people, maintain peace, defend the Rashtra against external aggression,

administer justice, and punish the guilty. The king was helped by the Purohit (Priest) and

council of ministers. The jurisprudence of ancient India, which was essentially Hindu-

ruled, was shaped by the concept of „Dharma‟ or rules of right conduct as outlined in the

various manuals explaining the Vedic scriptures such as „Puranas‟ and Smiritis.8

The king had no independent authority but derived his power from “Dharma”

which he was expected to uphold. The distinction between civil wrong and criminal

offences was clear, while civil wrongs related mainly to disputes arising over wealth.9

Manu advocated the theory of deterrence as the purpose of punishment and the infliction

of punishment should be according to the principles of natural justice. Manu cautions the

king that if he does not punish the offenders who are worthy of punishment then the

stronger would roast the weaker like fish on a spit and a situation will arise where might

may overrule right.10 In a country where punishment is not properly inflicted, the

ownership would but remain with any one; the lower ones would usurp the place of the

higher ones. The whole world is kept in order only by punishment, because there is no

one in the world who will always act in a just manner. Only the fear of punishment runs

the world. Manu also feared that if there was no punishment then all castes (Varna)

would be corrupted (by intermixture), all barriers would be broken through, and all men

would rage (against each other) in consequence of mistakes with respect to punishment.

Punishment was thus four-fold viz., admonition, reproof, fine and corporal. It was

awarded after considering the offenders condition and the crime committed by him.

8
Vasudeva Upadhya, A Study of Hindu Criminology, Orientalia Publication, Varanasi, 1978, p.322
9
Basham A.L, The Wonder that was India, London: Sidgnick and Jackson 1967, p.22
10
Buhler A, The Laws of Manu, Reprint form Oxford University‟s, 1984, p.79

11
Among the physical punishments for any offence of a small nature, whipping on the back

with a cord or bamboo stick was prescribed. Mutilation of limbs appeared to be one of

the most common practices.

Imprisonment was also prevalent during ancient period. The ancient

Dharmashastras do not show for what particular offences the prisoners were to be kept

confined. It is also clear that the period of confinement for a particular offence has not

been prescribed. And it would therefore appear that it was left to the king to decide who

should be sent to jail and for what period. Prisons were generally located in an

underground dungeon or in an out of the way place and were properly walled. Prisons

were well protected by guards and jailors. The main aim of imprisonment was to keep

away the wrong doers, so that they might not defile the members of social order. Even

female criminals had their feet tied and were put in prison.11 Wooden handcuffs were also

known to be used.

Kautilaya prescribed that a jail should be constructed in the capital, provided with

separate accommodation for men and women kept apart (thus the principles of

classification of men and women was in existence in the jails during ancient period), and

well guarded at the entrances, (since there is no mention about jails in other parts it is

evident that very few persons were sent to jail to undergo punishment). He further

provided that among the duties of the Nagarika (jail officer) was to let prisoners out of

the jail on the day of festival, of the birth, constellation of the king and on the full moon

day (of every month). Those persons who were young, very old, suffering from diseases

and helpless or those who were charitably disposed might pay the fines. Those who were

11
Supra note 8 p.11

12
not in a position to pay fines were jailed. Prisoners were released from jail as a favour on

the conquest of a fresh territory or on the coronation of the crown prince or on the birth of

a prince. The Brahat - Samhiter adds that release of prisoners could even be ordered when

the king took the Pusyasnana (an auspicious bath).12

The Maurya Dynasty, which had extended to substantial parts of the Central and

eastern regions during the 4th century B.C, had a rigorous penal system which prescribed

mutilation as well as the death penalty for even trivial offences. About the 2nd or 3rd

century A.D the Dharmashatras Code was drawn up by Manu, an important Hindu jurist.

The Code recognized assault and other bodily injuries, and property offences such as

theft and robbery. During the rule of the Gupta Dynasty (4th to 6th century A.D), the

judicial hierarchy was formed. Judicial decisions conformed to legal texts.13 It is thus

observed that imprisonment as a mode of punishment was not a regular feature in ancient

India when compared to the modern prison system.

2.1.2. Mughal Period

India was subjected to a series of invasions by the Muslims beginning in the 8 th

century A.D and ending in the 15th century, when a mixed race of Persians, Turks and

Mongols set-up the Mughal Empire. They occupied most of the Northern region and

enforced a Mohammedan criminal law that classified all offences on the basis of the

penalty which each merited. These included retaliation (blood for blood), specific

12
Supra note 7, p.10
13
Madhurima, Crime and Prison Life, Deep & Deep- Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2009, p.78

13
penalties (as for theft and robbery) and discretionary penalties.14 During Mughal period

sources of law and its character essentially remained Quranic.

The different kinds of punishment during the Mughal period were (1) Hadd, (2)

Tazir (3) Quisas (4) Taskir and (5) Qutal. Out of these, only Tazir provided for

punishment of imprisonment besides other modes like capital punishment, mutilation,

flogging, banishment, and public humiliation.15 Although imprisonment was a very usual

form of punishment in Mughal India, there were no specific rules fixed for it. The chief

feature of this punishment was that no period was fixed for it. The Quazi, i.e., the

Magistrate had a right to send anyone to prison for the offence or crime for which the

punishment could be awarded, and the accused had to show signs of repentance to secure

his freedom. There used to be three „noble prisons‟ in Mughal India at Gwalior,

Ranthambore and Rohtas. Criminals condemned to capital punishment were usually sent

to the Fort of Ranthambore. The Gwalior Fort was reserved for “nobles that offend”. To

Rohtas were sent those nobles who were condemned to perpetual imprisonment from

where “very few return home”. Princes of royal blood were often sent to this place.16

The accounts recorded by European travelers as well as the scattered cases in the

chronicles show that there were neither regular jails in the modern sense nor proper

arrangements for keeping criminals and political offenders in custody.

When the prisoners were taken to the prison, they were usually loaded with iron

fetters on their feet and shackles around their necks. For temporary confinement there

14
Griffith P , To Guard My People, Bombay: Allied Publishers, 1971, p.115
15
Jadunath Sarkar, Mughal Administration, Mc Sarkar Sons Ltd, Calcutta 1935, pp.116-124
16
Satya Prakash Sangar, Crime and Punishment in Mughal India, Sterling Publishers, Delhi, 1967, p.34

14
were police lock-ups in the cities termed as Chabutra-e-Kotwali.17 The officer in charge

of Chabutra-e-Kotwali used to be the Mushrif. The Chabutra-e-Kotwali has resemblance

with the modern police lock-ups, where the accused persons are kept, and prior to being

produced before the Magistrates. Even though there were no jails in the modern sense

during the Mughal period, the practice of releasing the prisoners on bail from jail was in

existence.

Thus the main features of prison system as they prevailed in Pre-British period were:

1. There were no prisons in the modern sense.

2. There is no description about the internal administration of prison.

3. There was no separation of prison service from the civil service.

4. There is no description about the types of prisoners sent to prison and the

relation of prisoners with the outside world.

5. Imprisonment was not the normal feature of punishment and most of the

punishment was meted out outside the prison.

6. Some forts were used for keeping certain types of prisoners. In such “Fort

Prisons” there were no rules for the recruitment of the staff, or rules and

regulations for the treatment of prisoners.

2.1.3. Prison System during the British Rule

The British arrived in the early 17thcentury as trader of the East India Company.

The Company slowly acquired territory across the sub-continent, strictly for commercial

operations in the beginning, but gradually assumed considerable powers of governance.

17
Supra note 16

15
Considering the Muslim criminal law to be irrational, the Company brought about several

reforms through a series of regulations which modified or expanded the definitions of

some offences, introduced new offences and altered penalties to make them more logical

and reasonable.18 In 1857, the large possessions and the authority enjoyed by the

company were transferred to the British Monarch by an Act of Parliament. Until this

time, India was a loose collection of kingdoms; interactions between them were nominal,

though cultural links were quite pronounced.19

The prison system as it operates today in our country is a legacy of the British

rule. It was established as a result of the attempts of the former British rule in

consolidating their administration in this country. Prisons on the western model were

established during the regime of the East India Company. Though much material is not

available on the early prison system, yet the minutes submitted by Lord Macaulay to the

legislative council of India at Fort William on December 21, 1835, clearly indicates the

thinking which patterned the systematic development of the prison system in this

country.20

Macaulay‟s ideas clearly indicated that Penal code was to rely chiefly on

imprisonment as a method of punishment. The prison sentence should inspire terror in the

people yet it should not be inhumane. Macaulay drew attention of the legislative council

of India to the deplorable conditions of the Indian jails and proposed to appoint a

committee “for the purpose of collecting information as to the state of Indian prison and

of preparing an improved plan of prison discipline and to suggest such reforms as may

18
Joshi R.M, Legal and Constitution History of India, N.N.Tripathy Ltd., Bombay, 1990, p.11
19
G. R. Madan, Indian Social Problems, Vol I, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 1981, p.126
20
Kum Kumchandra, The Indian Jail, Vikas Publishers, New Delhi, 1983, p.80

16
make the place a model for other prison”, which was readily received by Sir C.Metcafe,

the then acting Governor-General. The first Committee on prison reformation was

appointed to report upon the subject. The report was presented in the early part of 1838.

This Committee handled the aspects of housing of prisoners, discipline, health, diet,

remunerative theory, rewards and punishments, education, labour and recommended a

series of suggestions. The Committee in its Recommendations deliberately rejected “all

reforming influences such as moral and religious teaching, education or any system of

rewards for good conduct and suggested the building of central prisons with some dull,

monotonous, wearisome and uninteresting work.”21 In regard to central prisons, the

Committee recommended that they should be constructed to accommodate prisoners

sentenced to a term of over one year. Each central prison should accommodate up to 1000

prisoners.

In pursuance of this recommendation, a network of central prisons was

constructed in the north western province, now comprising the major portion of Uttar

Pradesh. In view of the terrible conditions as in Alipore jail, referred to by Macaulay in

the minute of 1835, it was recommended that sufficient buildings should be provided for

the proper and orderly housing of the prisoners.

Sir John Lawrence, the Governor of India reviewed the position in 186422 and

appointed the Second committee on prison reformation to minimize the high death rates

in prison, and for considering other aspects of jail management. This Committee came to

the conclusion that the sickness and mortality may be considered as mainly attributable to

21
Datir R.N, Prison as A Social System, Popular Prakashan Ltd, Bombay, 1978 , p.47
22
Ibid

17
overcrowding, bad ventilation, bad conservancy, bad drainage, insufficient clothing,

sleeping on the ground, and deficiency of personal cleanliness, bad water, and extraction

of labor from unfit persons and insufficient medical inspection. This Committee also

considered the aspects of juvenile delinquents, female prisoners, dietary, jail discipline

(Superintendence, labor, rewards, punishments, and education), classification of

convicted prisoners, habitual prisoners, and recommended a series of suggestion in the

prison system. Due to implementations of the recommendations of this Committee, the

death rate in prisons was considerably reduced. Followed by it a third Committee was

appointed in 1877. It reviewed jail administration and made important recommendations

pertaining to the receipts of supplies and maintenance of accounts. This Committee

composed entirely of officials actually engaged in prison work. It reviewed the jail

management generally and mostly concerned itself more with the matters of detailed

prison work than with the general aims and principles of administration.

The Fourth All India Jail Committee was appointed in 1889. In addition to the

review of prison administration, its major contributions were the separation of under-trial

prisoners and the classification of the prisoners into casual and habitual. This Committee

also recommended the establishment of a hospital in each jail. Most of the

recommendations of the Committee were incorporated in the jail manuals of various

provinces. The work of the Committee was supplemented by the All India Jail

Committee, 1892. It re-examined the whole prison administration in India and drew up

proposals on the subject of prison offences and punishment. The report of this Committee

was accepted by the Government of India which passed the Prisons Act, 1894.23 The Act

23
Supra note 18

18
fixed 9 hours labour a day for a criminal prisoner sentenced to labour or employed on

labour on his own desire. Buildings had been gradually provided, dietaries laid down,

systems of labour elaborated, a rational remission system developed, unsanitary

conditions partly corrected and death rates reduced. Despite such material progress, the

jail administration in India still lacked on its reformative side. Thus in 1919, a fifth

Committee was appointed. The Indian Jail Committee, 1919 gave expression to the new

ideas. The Committee made an extensive tour of England, Scotland, U.S.A, Japan,

Philippines, Hong Kong and Andaman‟s (where Indian political prisoners were detained),

studied prison systems there, and submitted a comprehensive report suggesting far

reaching changes in the various aspects of the prison system. The Committee made 584

recommendations (some of which have not been implemented even today in most of the

Indian jails). The changes in the prison system in India received a sudden setback due to

the constitutional changes brought about by the Government of India Act, 1919. The

enforcement of this Act affected the transfer of the jail department from the control of the

Government of India to that of the provincial government.

As regards the general objectives of prison administration, the report of the

Committee of 1919-20 observed:

“There is very general agreement that crime is an anti-

social act and that it is the task of the prison administrator
to deal with the offender that he and others may be deterred
from the commission of such acts in future. It is also
generally admitted by modern authorities that the aim of
the prison administration should further be to effect such
reformation in the character of the criminal so as to fit him
again to take his place in society and to become a useful
citizen.” 24
24
Extract from the Report of Indian Jail Committee, 1919-1920, Government Central Press, Simla, p.32

19
 By recommending these valuable measures for prison reform, the Indian Jail

Committee of 1919-20 gave an impetus to the modernization of jail administration in this

country. In practice, however, not much had been done by the alien governments on the

reformative side of prison system during the next quarter of a century that ended with the

transfer of power to Indian hands in 1947. However, the period from 1937 to 1947 was

important in the history of Indian prisons because it aroused public consciousness and

general awareness for prison reforms at least in some progressive states like West Bengal,

Tamilnadu, Maharashtra etc. The efforts of some of the eminent freedom fighters who

had known firsthand the conditions in prisons succeeded in persuading the governments

of these progressive states to appoint committees to further enquire into prison conditions

and suggest improvements in consonance with their local conditions.

Some of the committees appointed during the period were

i. The Mysore Committee on Prison Reforms, 1940-41

ii. The U.P Jail Reforms Committee, 1946 and

iii. The Bombay Jail Reforms Committee, 1946-48.

It was around this period that such progressive legislations as the Bombay

Probation of Offenders Act, 1936, the Central Provinces and Berar Conditional Release

of Prisoners Act, 1936 and the U.P First Offenders Probation Act, 1936, were passed.

In the late thirties, the U.P Government appointed a Jail Enquiry Committee and

in pursuance of its recommendations, the first jail training school in India was established

at Lucknow in 1940, for the training of jail officers and warders. The Constitution of

India which came into force in 1950 retained the position of the Government of India

20
Act, 1935, in the matter of prisons and kept “Prisons” as a state subject by including it in

list II – state list, of the seventh schedule (Entry 4).

The first decade after independence was marked by strenuous efforts for

improvements in living conditions in prisons. A number of jail reforms committees were

appointed by the State Governments, to achieve a certain measure of humanization of

prison conditions and to put the treatment of offenders on a scientific footing.

Some of the committees which made notable recommendation on these lines were:

i. The East Punjab Jail Reforms Committee, 1948-49.

ii. The Madras Jail Reforms Committee, 1950-51.

iii. The Jail Reforms Committee of Orissa, 1952-55.

iv. The Jail Reforms Committee of Travancore and Cochin, 1953-55.

v. The U.P Jail Industries Inquiry Committee, 1955-56.

2.1.4. Post - Independence

After the advent of freedom, a new phase of humanitarian prison administration

began in India. Ideas regarding punishment and functions of prisons changed. In the

Constitution of Republic of India, prison administration has been included in the state

list. In view of the changed penological ideology from custodial security to correction

and rehabilitation of offenders, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, set

up a committee in 1957 to prepare an All India Skeleton Jail Manual, to examine the

Prison Acts and other central legislation on the subject, and to recommend prison reform

21
to be applied uniformly throughout the country.25 The Committee was further directed to

examine and make recommendations regarding the classification of prisoners on

scientific lines, abolition of short-term sentences and provision of alternative measures to

consider the question of care of children and of women offenders, etc.

The Committee divided its recommendations as follows:

1. Provision of jail manual

 Part I - Department of Prison and Correctional Services.

 Part II - Personnel

 Part III - Treatment of prisoners

 Part IV - Special categories

2. Classification of prisoners and diet scale, short-term sentence, children of women

offenders, use of hand cuffs and fetters.

3. Prison reforms.

4. Legislation.

5. Other items, such as Planning of Correctional Administration, Five year plan,

Annual Conference of Correctional Administration and revision of the Draft

Manual and follow-up of the recommendation.

The Committee recommended the amendment of the Indian Penal Code and

Criminal Procedure Code in the light of the contemporary ideology of reformation and

rehabilitation of offenders, e.g., it may provide alternatives to prison sentences and

eliminate distinction between simple and rigorous imprisonment. While local Committees

25
Planning Commission, Plans and Prospects of Social Welfare in India, 1951-1961, Government of
India, New Delhi, 1963, p.143

22
were being appointed by State Governments (viz., Madras, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh and

Maharashtra) to suggest prison reforms.

The Central Correctional Bureau observed the year 1971, as “probation year” all

over the country. The purpose was to create a general awareness amongst the principal

branches of the criminal justice system, viz., the judiciary, the police, the prosecution and

the correctional administration about the use of probation as an effective non-institutional

mode of treatment for the convicts.

In 1972, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, appointed a working

group on prisons which presented its report in 1973. The working group brought out in its

report the need for a National Policy on prisons. In 1980, the Government of India has

constituted an All India Committee on Jail Reforms under the chairmanship of Mr.

Justice A.N.Mulla in 1980. The Committee submitted their report in 1983. A total of 658

recommendations made by this committee on various issues on prison management were

circulated to all states and UTs for implementation. The Committee also suggested that

there was an immediate need to have a national policy on prisons and proposed a draft

national policy on prisons. Thereafter, the Government of India constituted another

committee on 20th May, 1986, namely, the National Expert Committee on Woman

Prisoners under the chairmanship of Justice Krishna Iyer who has submitted its report on

18th May, 1987. This report has also been circulated to all states for taking necessary

follow-up action.

The Government of India has shown serious concern over the growing threats to

the security and discipline in prisons posing a challenge as how to make prisons a safe

23
place. Consequently, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India has constituted

an All India Group on Prison Administration - security and discipline on 28th July, 1986,

under the chairmanship of Shri. R.K.Kapoor submitted their report on 29th July 1987. In

pursuance to the recommendations, the Government of India identified the Bureau of

Police Research and Development (BPR&D) as a nodal agency at the national level in the

field of Correctional Administration on November 16, 1995.

In pursuance to the directions given by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of

Ramamurthy Vs State of Karnataka,26 1996, the Government of India constituted the All

India Model Prison Manual Committee in November, 2000 under the chairmanship of

Director General of BPR&D to prepare a Model Prison Manual for the superintendence

and management of prisons in India in order to maintain uniformity in the working of

prisons throughout the country. This manual has been circulated to all States and UTs for

adoption after acceptance by the Government of India in January, 2004.

On 1st December, 2005, the Government of India constituted a high powered

committee under the chairmanship of Director General, Bureau of Police Research and

Development (BPR&D) for drafting a national policy paper on Prison Reforms and

Correctional Administration, to review the status of implementation of the following:

a. Physical conditions of prisons

i. Over Crowding and Congestion

ii. Hygienic Conditions

iii. Other Basic Amenities

26
AIR 1999 SC 1739

24
 b. Condition of Prisoners

i. Undertrials

ii. Convicts

iii. Detenues

c. Correctional Administration

i. Programme for welfare of convicts / undertrials

ii. Rehabilitation after release

iii. Involvement of community

d. Prison personnel

i. Overall development of prison personnel

ii. Training

e. Issues related to modernization of prisons and correctional administration.

i. Suggestions regarding alternatives to imprisonment.

The Bureau of Police Research and Development has also placed this draft policy

paper in the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Prison Reforms held on 3 rd

November, 2006, for discussion to make this document more viable. Finally, it has

finalized this draft national policy on prison reforms.

2.2. Prison Distribution in India

Prison and its administration is a state subject as it is covered by item 4 under list

II in schedule VII of the Constitution of India. Prison establishments in different

states/UTs comprise several tiers of jails. The most common and standard jail

institutions which are in existence in the states/UTs are better known as Central jails,

25
District jails and Sub-jails. The other types of jail establishments are Women jails,

Borstal schools, Open jails and Special jails.

Total number of jails in the States/ UTs shows that Maharashtra has the highest

number (215) of jails among the States/UTs followed by Andhra Pradesh (141), Tamil

Nadu (134), Madhya Pradesh (123), Rajasthan (219) and Karnataka (102). Arunachal

Pradesh does not have any jail of its own. Its convicts and undertrial prisoners are kept in

jails of Assam, therefore, prison statistics in respect of Assam include prisoners of

Arunachal Pradesh also.27

2.2.1. Central Jail

The criteria for a jail to be categorised as a Central jail differs from state to state.

However, the common features observed in all the States/UTs are that the prisoners

sentenced to imprisonment for a longer period are confined in the central jails, which

have larger capacity in comparison to other jails. These jails also have rehabilitation

facilities. Meghalaya, Orissa, Uttaranchal, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh,

Dadar and Naga Haveli, Daman and Diu and Lakshadweep do not have any central jail in

their territories. Tamil Nadu has the highest number of 9 central jails followed by

Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Delhi (8) each.

2.2.2. District Jail

District Jails serve as the main prisons in some of the States/UTs. States which

have considerable number of District jails are Uttar Pradesh (53) Rajasthan (25), Bihar

(30) and Maharashtra (25 each), Madhya Pradesh (22), Jharkhand (17), Assam (21),

27
Prison Statistics India 2011 (New Delhi: National Crime Records Bureau), Ministry of home affairs. p.1

26
Orissa (13), Haryana and West Bengal (12 each). Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Delhi

and Pondicherry have one District jail each among UTs.28

2.2.3. Sub-Jail

Ten states have reported comparatively higher number of sub-jails revealing well

organized prison set-up even at lower formation. These states are Maharashtra (172),

Andhra Pradesh (120), Tamil Nadu (113), Madhya Pradesh (86), Karnataka (81),

Rajasthan (59), Orissa (52), West Bengal (29), Kerala (26) and Bihar (25).29

2.2.4. Open Jail

Prisoners with good behavior satisfying certain norms prescribed in the prison

rules are admitted in open prisons. Minimum security is kept in such prisons and

prisoners are engaged in agricultural activities. Only 14 States have reported about the

functioning of Open Jails in their jurisdiction. Amongst these States, Rajasthan reported

the highest number of 23 open jails. Maharashtra had 5 followed by Andhra Pradesh,

Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu (2 jails each). The remaining 8 States - Assam,

Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab, Uttarakhand and West

Bengal have one Open Jail each. Existence of such jails was not reported from any of the

UTs. The highest capacity of inmates in open jails was reported from Maharashtra(972)

followed by Kerala (670), Rajasthan(629), Andhra Pradesh (430), Uttarakhand(300),

Odisha (150), Tamil Nadu (110), Assam & Gujarat (100 each), HimachalPradesh &

Karnataka (80 each), WestBengal (70) and Punjab (50).30

28
Ibid at p-2
29
Ibid
30
Prison Statistics India 2011 (New Delhi: National Crime Records Bureau), Ministry of home affairs. p.1

27
2.2.5. Special Jail

Special jail means any prison provided for the confinement of a particular class or

particular classes of prisoners which are broadly as follows:

1. Prisoners who have committed serious violations of prison discipline.

2. Prisoners showing tendencies towards violence and aggression.

3. Difficult discipline cases of habitual offenders.

4. Difficult discipline cases from a group of professionally organised criminals.

Kerala has the highest number of special jails (5) out of the 9 states having special

jails followed by West Bengal (4), Gujarat, Karnataka, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh (2 each),

Assam, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu (1 each).31

2.2.6. Women Jail

There are only 15 women jails in 12 States / UTs functioning exclusively for

women prisoners. Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu have 2 women jails each

followed by Bihar, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, West

Bengal and Delhi (1each). The total capacity of women inmates was highest in

Tamilnadu (513) followed by Delhi (400), Rajasthan (350), Andhra Pradesh (320),

Maharashtra (262), Punjab (150), West Bengal (100), Uttar Pradesh(96), Bihar (83),

Kerala (60), Orissa (55) and Tripura (30).32

31
Supra note 30
32
Ibid

28
2.2.7. Borstal School

The primary objective of Borstal schools is to ensure care, welfare and

rehabilitation of young offenders in a different environment suitable for children and

keep them away from contaminating atmosphere of the prison. Borstal schools cannot be

treated as either a miniature jail or a substitute for it. The young offenders between the

age of 18-21 years (Boys). The delinquents detained in Borstal schools are provided

various vocational trainings. They are also given education with the help of trained

teachers.

Ten States namely Tamil Nadu (12), Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Himachal

Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab and Rajasthan (1 each) have

reported Borstal Schools in their respective jurisdiction. Tamil Nadu had the highest

capacity for keeping 667 inmates followed by Punjab (500), Haryana (355), Karnataka

(200), Maharashtra (105), Jharkhand (100) and Himachal Pradesh (15) are the only States

which have reported capacity for lodging female inmates in their Borstal schools.

29