Joseph Maliakan
As of December 2022, there were 4,34,302 undertrial prisoners in various jails in India , constituting 75.08 percent of total prison population, according to data released by the National Crime Records Bureau ( NCRB) in February 2024. And the majority of the undertrial prisoners belonged to the oppressed communities in the country, 20.94 belonged to the Scheduled Castes, 9.26 percent were scheduled Tribes and 35.88 percent came from the socially and educationally backward communities.
The number of undertrial prisoners in the Indian Jails who have spent one to two years were 63502, two to three years , 33980, three to five years , 25869 and above five years were 11448.The state of Uttar Pradesh had the maximum number of undertrial prisoners, 37010, followed by Maharashtra, 12692, West Bengal, 9335, Madhya Pradesh ,8262 and Punjab 7200.Lakshadeep is the only territory in India which has no undetrials.No crime has been reported in the Union Terrtory since independence.
The undertrials are deprived of many rights ,including the right to vote.However the prisoners still have all the constitutional rights , including the right to life and personal liberty. Prisons is a state subject and the prisons are administered by the states under archaic prison mannuals made under the British colonial rule. There have been talks about the need to reform prison mannuals in tune with independent India’s Constitution guaranting all the rights under Article 14, and 21 to every prisoner in India.
The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India had in 2016 prepared a Model Prison Manual with the objective of ensuring uniformity in the basic principles governing prisons and had shared it with all states and union Territories for adoption. However , very few have followed up with changing the archaic prison rules many of which violate constitional rights of the prisoners.
The Ministry of Home Affairs had also reviewed the pre-independence era acts , The Prisons Act, 1894, The Prisoners Act 1900 and The Transfer of Prioners Act 1950 and prepared a ‘Model Prisons and Correctional Servises Act ‘ in May 2023 for possible adoption by the states and the union territories.
In this context a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices JB Padiwala and Manoj Misra in a judgement delivered on 3rd October 2024 banned caste based discrimination like division of manual labour , segragation of barracks and bias against prisoners of denotified Tribes and habitual offenders.
The Supreme Court held as unconstitutional certain objectional prison manual rulesof 10 states including Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh , Andhra Pradeshb, Odisha , Kerala , Maharashtra, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh.
The CJI writing the judgement on behalf of the bench reiterated the rights of the prisoners under Articles. 14 (;equality) 15 ( prohibition of discrimination ) 17;( aboliton of untouchability ) , 21 ( right to life and personal liberty ) of the Constitution.
Highlighting the importance of article 21 the SC order said , ” The right to live with dignity extends even to the Incacerated. Not providing dignity to prisoners is a relic of the colonisers and colonial mechanisms where oppressive systems were designed to dehumanise and degrade those under the control of the State.
” Authoritarian regimes of the pre-constitutional era saw prisons not only as places of confinement but also as tools of domination. This court , focussing on the changed legal framework brought out by the Constitution , has recognised that even prisoners are entitled to the right to dignity.”
The state shall not under Article 14 deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India and equality is a crucial aspect of the constitutional vision.
” The constitutional standards laid down by the Court under Article 14 can be summarised as follows . First , the Constitution permits classification if there is intelligible differentiaand reasonable nexus with the object sought . Second the classification test cannot be merely applied as a mathematical formula to reach a conclusion…” the order said.
The judgement further said that Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of caste, race, religion, language etc. ” If the State itself discriminates against a citizen under any of the mentioned grounds , then it is discrimination of the highest form. After all, the State is expected to prevent discrimination , not perpetuate it. That is why our constitution prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen , the order added.
Discrimination is prohibited , because it has several repercussions on human lives and it arises due to a feeling of superiority or inferiority , bias, contempt or hatred against a person or a group, the order said.
” In history , such feelings have led to genocide of certain communities. Discrimination also lowers the self -esteem of the person being discriminated against.It can lead to unfair denial of opportunities and constant violence against a set of people. Discrimination can also be done by continuosly ridiculing or humiliating someone, who is on the weaker side of the social spectrum. It can cause trauma to a person with which they may be affected their entire life.
“Discriminatory laws enacted before the Constitution of India came into force need to be scrutinised and done away with” the CJI said .Under Article 17 untouchability has been abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden the order pointed out . Article 17 enunciates that everyone is born equal. There cannot be any stigma attached to the existence , touch or pressence of any person.
Implicit in the right under Article 21 is ‘ the right to protection against torture or, inhuman or degrading treatment.”
Citing Article 23 which deals with the prohibition of forced labour and human trafficking the court said that by allowing such prison rules the States are are becoming part of the offence. The court gave instances of caste- based discrimination in prisons , such as viewing as cruelty forcing a man of ‘ higher caste’ to work at any trade would disgrace him and his family.
