Chapter 3

Prison Overcrowding and Human Rights

3.0 Introduction
This chapter deals with prison overcrowding and general living conditions of
prisoners. When prison population goes beyond its authorised capacity of
accommodation, it is known as Overcrowding. Overcrowding in the Prisons is an
important human rights issue as it results in deterioration of the general living
conditions of the prisoners. It also creates hindrances in the reformation process.
Prison officers find it difficult to initiate and continue correctional measures. This
chapter discusses the nature and extent of overcrowding with special reference to
Amritsar Central Jail. It also looks at causes and consequences of overcrowding and
suggests remedial measures.

The world-wide prison population as per the International Centre for Prison
Studies, Kings College, London (2006) is 94.5 lakhs as against the total world
population of 665 crores. This amounts to 0.14 percent of the total population being
lodged in the prisons. The total estimated prison population in India for the year 2006
is 3, 58,368 as against total population of 1,12,98,66,154. It amounts to 0.03 percent
of the total Indian population being confined in the jails [BPRD, 2008]1. The
percentage figure is much below the world average. However it is because of
population explosion in India. The number of prisoners is very high keeping in view
the prison capacity in India.

Overcrowding is prevalent in almost every country in one form or the other.

Besides developing and under-developed countries of Africa and Asia, developed
countries like United States of America, Japan and United Kingdom are also facing
this problem. ‘One of America's biggest problems today is the overcrowding of
prisons. This began when the population of inmates started to soar in the 1980's. With
the increase of rapists, murderers, and drug dealers skyrocketing, there are obvious
reasons to this overpopulation. The nation responds to this by building more prisons at
a fast pace. But the construction has not kept pace with the soaring population of
1
Bureau of Police Research & Development, India: Agenda Points, All India Conference of Ministers,
Secretaries and Director/Inspectors General In-charge of Prisons, April 2008 (p.7)
45
inmates’.2 We can see examples of overcrowded prisons all over the U.S.A. and even
out of the U.S.A. California's prison system, originally designed for 100,000 inmates
houses 173,000 (December 2006). And thus percentage of overcrowding is 173.
[www.fratfiles.com/essays/148468.html]

According to the Justice Ministry of Japan, there were 70,737 detainees in

prisons and detention houses till July 2006, the highest in more than 50 years.
However, existing facilities could hold only 60,794 and were operating at 116.4
percent capacity (News Nerve, 2006)3. At the end of August 2005, 81 of the 142
prisons in England and Wales were overcrowded. Nearly two-thirds of Britain's
prisoners are being held in overcrowded jails, according to the findings of a new
study. The Howard League for Penal Reform says that 52,500 people are in jails
running above capacity. In some instances, prisons are holding almost double the
number of recommended inmates. Worst is HMP Preston (185 percent) with 661
prisoners as against the capacity of 356 as reported by the BBC4.

3.1 Prison Overcrowding: Indian Perspective

As on 1.1.2006, the total prison population in all the 1328 prisons in India was
3,58,368 against the authorised capacity of 2,46,497 prisoners. The growth rate of
prison population in Indian prisons during 2005 over 2001 is found to be 14.26
percent which shows an average annual growth rate of 3.56 percent. In absolute
number it translates into 11,183 additional prisoners per year. The overcrowding in
Indian prisons as on 1.1.2006 is found to be 145.4 percent which is much higher than
in the UK (112.2 percent) and USA (107.9 percent). However, it is certainly lower
than the one prevailing in the neighbouring countries like Bangladesh (188.5 percent)
and Pakistan (147 percent).5

2
www.term-papers.us/ts/hc/svn278.shtml
3
News Nerve magazine dated 17 September 2006
4
www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2222022.stm
5
Supra Note 1
46
 Reformation and correctional measures have not gathered momentum in India
due to immense pressure of overcrowding. According to Upneet Lalli (2000)6, an
important aspect in prison administration is the population that the authorities have to
handle in the prisons. A major problem being faced in most of the Indian prisons is
overcrowding of prisoners which leads to inadequate infrastructural facilities and lack
of essential services to the prison inmates. Inflation of the Prison Population poses a
challenge to policymakers and governments in many parts of the country. As per
Prison Snapshot 20047, Jharkhand reported the highest overcrowding of prisons
(300.9 percent) followed by Delhi (249.7 percent) while the least occupancy was
reported from Daman & Diu (22.5 percent). Other most affected states are Bihar,
Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Sikkim, Uttar Pradesh,
Tripura, Haryana and Punjab.

The extent of overcrowding in India is highlighted in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1.
At the end of the year 2005, the highest number of 56,718 inmates was reported from
Uttar Pradesh followed by Bihar 45,818. Jharkhand reported the highest overcrowding
of prisons (318.2 percent) followed by Gujarat (200.5 percent) and Delhi (197.1
percent) while the least occupancy was reported from Lakshadweep (10.0 percent)8.

Table 3.1
9
Percentage of Overcrowding along with Authorised Capacity and Actual Prison
Population in India from 2001 to 2006
Year Authorised Prison Percentage of
Capacity Population Overcrowding
2001 2,29,713 3,13,635 136.50 percent
2002 2,29,874 3,22,357 140.20 percent
2003 2,33,543 3,26,519 139.80 percent
2004 2, 35,012 3,31,391 141.00 percent
2005 2,46497 3,58,368 145.38 percent
2006 2,63,911 3,73,271 141.43 percent
Source: NCRB, New Delhi

6
Lalli, Upneet: Problem of Overcrowding in Indian Prisons – A study of undertrials as one of the
factors, Institute of Correctional Administration, Chandigarh, 2000
7
Prison Statistics 2004, NCRB, India
8
Prison Statistics, 2005, NCRB, India
9
Percentage of overcrowding = (Total Population/Prison Capacity)x 100

47
 The highest number of 66,669 inmates were reported from Uttar Pradesh (17.9
percent) followed by Bihar 44,281 at the end of the year 2006. Delhi reported the
highest overcrowding of prisons (214.4 percent) followed by Gujarat (206.9 percent)
and Chhattisgarh (195.5 percent).10 It shows that Jharkhand maintained highest
percentage of overcrowding in 2004 and 2005 while Delhi topped the list again in
2006.

Figure 3.1
Overcrowding situation in India from 2001 to 2006

In Tihar Jail, New Delhi, 13772 inmates were lodged against total capacity of 6250 in
October 2006.11 And thus the percentage of overcrowding comes as 220 percent.

3.2 Overcrowding in Amritsar Central Jail

The problem of overcrowding is prevalent in almost all the jails of Punjab
more or less corresponding to Indian pattern. The total population of prisoners was
14073 as against authorized accommodation of 9854 as on 31 March 2005. Thus the
rate of overcrowding in Punjab is 142 percent. At the end of 2006, the jails of Punjab
accommodated 15581 inmates against total capacity of 10854 having percentage
overcrowding 143.55 percent.12 It implies that overcrowding percentage increased in
comparison with 2005 despite increase in the total capacity by 1000.

10
Prison Statistics, 2006, NCRB, India
11
Office of the office of DIG, Tihar Jails, New Delhi
12
Office of IG Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh
48
 Thus we can see that the problem of overcrowding in Punjab is almost at par
with the national percentage. Of all the seven Central Jails in Punjab, Amritsar is the
most important and sensitive one. Data have been collected from Amritsar Central Jail
in terms of total capacity and actual population from 2003 to 2008. For 2008, data
have been collected twice-- January and September. This has been tabulated and
percentage overcrowding has been calculated as given in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2
Year-wise Overcrowding Percentage in Amritsar Central Jail from 2003 to 2008
overcrowding
Year* Capacity Population
percentage
2003 1000 1793 179.3
2004 1000 2005 200.5
2005 1000 2027 202.7
2006 1000 2136 213.6
2007 1000 2134 213.4
2008 1000 2316 231.6
2008** 1000 2550 255.0
*Indicates average data of January each year
** Data of September 2008
Source: Office of the Superintendent, Amritsar Central Jail

Figure 3.2
Overcrowding in Amritsar Central Jail from 2003 to 2008

** Data of September 2008

49
 It is evident from the data mentioned in the Table 3.2 that the authorised
capacity of Amritsar Central Jail is 1000. However, the number of inmates in January
2003 is 1793 which went upto 2316 in January 2008. It further increased upto 2550 in
September 2008. Thus we see a steep increase in the prison population over the time.
From 2004 onwards, overcrowding remains more than 200 percent which becomes an
alarming situation. In September 2008 it went up to 255 percent which is all time high
not in Amritsar but in the entire Punjab. It is far more than the average Punjab
percentage. Prison Authorities here find it very difficult to manage the day-to-day
affairs of the Prison as a result of this problem. Shortage of staff and prisoner-staff
ratio results in mismanagement of the prison leading to various other problems like
inadequate provision of basic amenities and sanitation.

3.3 Barrack-wise Scenario of Overcrowding

Amritsar Central Jail has two types of accommodation – Barracks as well as
Cells. Both are highly crowded when we analyse the situation Barrack-wise or Cell-
wise. Central Jail Amritsar has only eight barracks including one for female inmates.
Every barrack has four rooms and each room has accommodation for 25 inmates.
Thus, every barrack can accommodate 100 inmates. Besides, there are some cells
which can accommodate not more than 200 inmates. Though all the barracks and cells
are overcrowded, the situation of overcrowding is not equally prevalent in all the
barracks and cells. There are some barracks and cells which are very overcrowded. To
assess the exact position, some of the barracks were visited and data were collected.
Room-wise detail of barrack no. 2 and 7 has been as shown in Table 3.3 and 3.4.

Table 3.3
Room-wise Actual Number of Prisoners and Capacity in Barrack 2
Room No Capacity Actual number of inmates

I 25 105

II 25 113

III 25 115

IV 25 104

Total 100 437

Source: Office of the Superintendent, Amritsar Central Jail

50
 In Barrack no. 2 on 25 August 2006, 437 inmates were lodged against the
actual capacity of hundred. Similarly in the barrack no. 7, 314 prisoners were lodged
on 25 August 2006 against authorised capacity of 100. Thus percentage overcrowding
in barrack number 2 and 7 is 437 and 314 percent respectively far more than prison
percentage in 2006 which is 213.6.

Table 3.4
Room-wise Actual Number of Prisoners and Capacity in Barrack 7

Room No Capacity Actual number of inmates

I 25 85

II 25 77

III 25 70

IV 25 82

Total 100 314

Source: Office of the Superintendent, Amritsar Central Jail

The situation in the cells is almost similar. In one cell 61 prisoners were
lodged against the capacity of 30. In another cell 40 prisoners were lodged against the
capacity of 10. In this cell normally newcomers are accommodated. However, there is
no overcrowding in the women’s barrack as it accommodates around 100 prisoners
against the capacity of 100. However, women prisoners are facing many other
problems which will be discussed later.

The situation of overcrowding will go worst if the provisions of segregation and

separation are implemented in letter and spirit. Punjab Jail Manual13 provides for
classification of prisoners for the purpose of separation. Prisoners for purpose of
separation, as far as possible may be classified and kept separate as follows:

i) Men and women shall be kept in separate institutions or separate part of

institution/annexes.
ii) Better class prisoners should be kept separate from ordinary prisoners.

13
Manual for the Superintendence and Management of the Prisons in Punjab, 1996, Para 496

51
 iii) Condemned prisoners, prisoners convicted to rigorous or simple
imprisonment, civil prisoners, and undertrial prisoners.
iv) Adult prisoners from adolescents.
v) Habitual prisoners from non-habitual prisoners.
vi) Prisoners under TADA and COFEPOSA be kept separate from other
prisoners.
vii) Inmates suspected to be suffering from mental disorders.
viii) Homosexuals.
ix) Sex perverts.
x) Drug addicts and traffickers in narcotics.
xi) Inmates having suicidal tendencies.
xii)Inmates exhibiting violent and aggressive tendencies.
xiii) Inmates having escape or discipline risks.
xiv) Known bad characters
The abovementioned classification is required for the purpose of reformation
and rehabilitation projects. If these provisions are implemented, the percentage of
overcrowding will increase approximately by double.

3.4 Causes of Overcrowding

The overcrowding in the prisons can partly be attributed to delay in the
disposal of undertrial cases in the courts and partly to inadequate capacity of prisons
in India to accommodate all the persons required to be sent to prisons. Further the
policy of granting Probation, Parole, Remission and Commutation of sentence has not
been implemented in letter and spirit.14 Lalli (2000) has treated the increasing number
of undertrial prisoners as a major cause of overcrowding in the Indian Prisons
especially in the context of Punjab and Haryana. She further observed that undertrial
prisoners mostly belong to the weaker section of society.15

National Human Rights Commission of India states that unnecessary and

unjustified arrests made by the Police and slow judicial process causing congestion of

14
Draft National Policy on Prison Reforms and Correctional Administration, Bureau of
Police Research and Development, New Delhi, 2007, p.129
15
Supra Note 6
52
undertrial prisoners are the main causes of overcrowding in jails16. However if we rely
on the data analysed by the BPR&D, Indian Courts are very liberal to grant bail and
only 2.87 percent of total arrestees were lodged as undertrials in 2004. A total of
75,66,500 persons were arrested in India during 2004 in both Bailable and Non-
Bailable offences. Out of this large number of arrestees, only 2,17,130 were lodged in
the prisons. Similarly in the year 2005, the percentage of imprisoned undertrials to the
total arrests was found to be 3.6 percent. Thus over 96 percent of the persons arrested
in connection with their involvement in committing crime are able to get bail,
signifying ‘Bail not Jail’ as the underlying guiding factor in the Indian Criminal
Justice System.17

On the basis of above-mentioned facts, the following major factors are

responsible for overcrowding in the Prisons:

1. Shortage of adequate accommodation;

2. Increasing number of undertrial prisoners; and
3. Lack of uniform and adequate policy of probation, parole, remission and
commutation of sentence.

3.4.1 Shortage of Adequate Accommodation

Shortage of barracks and cells is a major factor leading to overcrowding in the
prisons. The population of India is increasing day by day and thus coupled with rise in
the crime; the number of prisoners is also increasing fast. In 2006, Indian prisons had
the capacity to accommodate only 2,63,911 inmates. However total prison population
was 3,73,271 in that year. Thus a shortage of 1,09,360 was noticed. The trend in
Indian prisons during the period 2001 to 2005 shows an increase in overcrowding in
spite of addition of fresh capacity under the Modernisation of Prison Scheme
launched by the Ministry of Home Affairs, India jointly with the States from the
financial year 2002-2003.

16
Annual Report 2004-2005, NHRC, New Delhi
17
Supra Note 1, p.7

53
 In the context of Amritsar Central Jail, there has been no addition of
accommodation during the period 2003 to 2008. The capacity of the prison remains
1000. The only addition noticed was one barrack for the women inmates having two
rooms. Out of this, one room is utilised for vocational training of women inmates and
the other room has been assigned for living accommodation, in which 25 wooden cots
have been provided with community support.

The number of prisoners increased from 1793 in January 2003 to 2550 in

September 2008 against the total capacity of 1000 resulting in an urgent need to
construct new barracks and cells to accommodate the inmates. At least 15 new
barracks having capacity of 100 each are required to be constructed to provide
accommodation to all the inmates.

3.4.2 Increasing Number of Undertrial Prisoners

Undertrials form a major part of prison population in Indian Jails. However,
the percentage of undertrials is more than the convicts. Around 65 percent undertrials
are lodged in various jails of India. Increasing number of undertrials is one of the
major factors responsible for overcrowding of jails.

Table 3.5 and Figure 3.3 show that the distribution of undertrials in the Prison
Population of India from 2001 to 2006 as per National Crime Records Bureau.18

Table 3.5
Distribution of Undertrial Prisoners from 2001 to 2006 in India
Year Prison Number of Percentage of
Population undertrials undertrials
2001 3,13,635 2,20,817 70.5
2002 3,22,357 2,23,038 69.2
2003 3,26,519 2,17,658 66.66
2004 3,31,391 2,17,130 65.5
2005 3,58,368 2,37,239 66.2
2006 3,73,271 2,45,244 65.7

18
Prison Statistics India 2001-2006, National Crime Records Bureau, New Delhi

54
 Figure 3.3
Distribution of Undertrial Prisoners from 2001 to 2006 in India

It shows that from 2001 to 2006, the population of undertrials in Indian Jails
remained very high ranging from 65 percent to 70 percent. In the year 2006 it was
65.7 percent. This is far more than the one in other countries. The percentage of
undertrials in the UK was only 17.5 percent and in the USA 20.20 percent in 2004
(BPR&D, 2007). As per the Draft National Policy on Prison Reforms (BPR&D,
2007), the composition of prisoners in India, with 65.5 percent of undertrial
population is the cause of concern because it necessitates custody of a very high
number of persons who ultimately get acquitted. The conviction rate in India has been
hovering around 40 percent for the last several years. It means that out of around 60.5
percent prison population falling into the undertrial category, as many as 1,30,270
prisoners i.e. equal to the prevailing 60 percent (acquittal rate) should not have been
languishing in jails. Delay in trial is the main cause for the large number of undertrials
in the jails.

In Amritsar Central Jail, the undertrial population in the years 2003 to 2008
ranged from 65.9 percent to 67.7 percent (See Table 3.6). In 2003, undertrials were
65.9 percent of the total population which went down between 58 to 61 percent till
2007. However, it went up to 67.7 percent in 2008. In September 2008, the undertrial
prisoners constituted 67.7 percent (1570) of the total prison population (2316). The
situation is more or less similar to that of national as seen from Table 3.5. It is evident

55
from the data stated above that the number of undertrial prisoners only is one and a
half times more than the authorised capacity of Central Jail Amritsar i.e. 1000.

Table 3.6
Distribution of Undertrial Prisoners from 2003 to 2008 in Amritsar Central Jail
Year Prison Number of Percentage of
Population undertrials undertrials
2003 1793 1183 65.9
2004 2005 1164 58.1
2005 2027 1228 60.5
2006 2136 1293 60.5
2007 2134 1305 61.15
2008 2316 1570 67.7
Source: Office of the Superintendent, Amritsar Central Jail

Now the data will be compared with that of Tihar Prison, New Delhi. As
shown in Table 3.7, Delhi’s Tihar Prison is worse affected with the problem of
overcrowding because of increasing number of undertrials. In 2006, total 13772
prisoners were lodged in Tihar Prison as against the authorised capacity of 6250 and
thus overcrowding was 145.38 percent. Out of theses 13772 prison inmates, 11156
were undertrials constituting 81 percent of the total population.

Table 3.7
Distribution of Undertrials’ Population in Tihar Prison as on 18.10.2006

Jail No. Capacity UT TOTAL

1 565 1623 1827
2 455 11 1253
3 740' 1800 2062
4 740 1716 1950
5 750 1721 1884
6 (Female) 400 398 500
7 350 572 642
8 600 840 917
9 600 911 976
D.J. (Rohini) 1050 1564 1761
Grand Total 6250 11156 13772

Source: Office of the DIG, Tihar Jail, New Delhi

56
 Thus increasing number of undertrials is a serious problem and is responsible
for overcrowding to a great extent.

3.4.3 Lack of impartial and independent mechanism for the grant of Probation,
Parole, Remission and Commutation of sentence and other form of Pre-mature
release
In the Indian Jails, there are certain class of convicted prisoners who should
not be kept in the custody if the Administration adopts an impartial and independent
mechanism of probation, parole, remission and commutation of sentence and other
forms of pre-mature release. Since the number of such convicts is very large, it is one
of the basic reasons for overcrowding. If a mechanism is put in place it would greatly
help in providing relief to the convicts and also resulting in reducing the problem of
overcrowding.

The National Human Rights Commission of India has observed many

discrepancies and shortcomings in the process of pre-mature release of convicted
prisoners. In an important decision, The NHRC observes, “The Commission has been
receiving complaints from and on behalf of convicts undergoing life imprisonment
about the non-consideration of their cases for premature release even after they have
undergone long periods of sentence ranging from 10 to 20 years with or without
remissions. Pursuant to the information received and closer study of the issues
involved in this important issue impinging upon the human rights of a large number of
convicts undergoing life imprisonment in the prisons throughout the length and
breadth of the country, the Commission is surprised to note that although the said
power of premature release is to be exercised by the State Government under the
Provisions of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the procedure and
practice followed by the State Governments to exercise the said power is not
uniform”.19
The Commission further observes “several instances have come to the notice
of the Commission where certain inmates were not released nor their cases considered
even after they had undergone the imprisonment for over 20 years. The Commission
has, therefore, shown its concern and is of the view that it is high time that a uniform

19
NHRC, New Delhi, Case No. : 233/10/97-98, Date of decision: 20 October, 1999
57
system of premature release of the prisoners is evolved for adoption by the State
Governments.”20
Section 360 of the Cr.P.C 1973 deals with the powers of the court to release
certain convicted offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them
to imprisonment. However, this facility is not extended uniformly and impartially.
Remission is a concession which can be granted to prisoners by the State
Government or by the Head of the Prison Department and Superintendent of Prisons.
Remission is intended to be an incentive for good behaviour and work.21
The relevant provisions in regard to the suspension and remission of sentence
are contained in Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as
follows:
“Power to suspend or remit sentences-
(1) “When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the
appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any
conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his
sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has
been sentenced.”
The provisions of remissions are also arbitrary in nature and do not serve any purpose
in the absence of uniform procedure throughout the country.
There are very few cases in which the accused are released on parole after
conviction as per the Probation of the Offender's Act. Premature release has become
highly politicized and this privilege is given mainly to persons close to politicians or
their relatives.22
In Amritsar Central Jail also, the situation is not satisfactory. The inmates have
genuine grievances about their cases not being sent for premature release on time and
even pendency of such requests with the competent authority without any reason. The
same has been cross-checked by records and opinion given by the prison officers.
Hundred convicted prisoners were interviewed by the researcher. It was observed that
95 percent of the convicted prisoners are not satisfied with the procedure of remission
and premature release. Out of the hundred convict respondents, only 5 percent were

20
Ibid.
21
Bureau of Police Research and Development, Model Prison Manual, 2003, (Para 16.02)
22
Hiremath Vijay, Combat Law, Vol 7 Issue 2 , March - April 2008
58
satisfied with this process. Corruption in the system and biased approach of the jail
officers are also responsible for aggravating this problem. Only 49 percent of the
respondents have availed of the facility of remission.
Thus unnecessary burden of jails can be reduced if a uniform and impartial
system of remission and premature release is made functional.

3.5 Consequences of Overcrowding

The consequences of overcrowding are manifold. The overcrowding has very
severe, harmful and dehumanizing impact on the prisoners as also the institutional
environment. It creates problems in the management of prisons. This has deleterious
effect on the health of prisoners. Overcrowding at times has even led to riots taking
place inside the prison, like rioting in Jalandhar Jail of Punjab in January 2008.

As reported in The Tribune, ‘Prisoners took over the overcrowded Central Jail
located near Basti Adda Chowk Jalandhar and did not allow anyone to come near
them for a couple of hours today. The prisoners also tried to blow up the boundary
wall of the 19th century jail of the British time. The jail police resorted to fire several
rounds in the air and fired teargas shells to thwart their attempt to flee’.23

Amritsar Central Jail has also witnessed incidents of violence from time to
time. An inmate was killed by two fellow inmates in October 2008 in the Amritsar
Central Jail.

Prison overcrowding has many negative effects upon inmates. Research has
demonstrated that prison overcrowding creates competition for limited resources,
aggression, higher rates of illness, increased likelihood of recidivism and higher
suicide rates.24

Overcrowding happens to be the single most important obstacle to improving

the quality of services in the prisons. Since the primary task of prison is reformation

23
The Tribune, Chandigarh, January 09, 2008
24
John Howard Society: Prison Overcrowding, Alberta, 1996

59
and social rehabilitation, it implies that the prisoners must have some activity to do.
The undertrials spend the whole day locked in a cell or sitting idly.25

On the basis of interviews with the prisoners as well as prison authorities, the
following consequences of overcrowding are enumerated:

1. Overcrowding adversely affects the health and hygiene of the prisoners.

2. Prisoners do not get adequate space in the sleeping barrack as required for a
normal human being.

3. Overcrowding badly affects the quality of food being provided to the

prisoners.

4. Overcrowding increases the problem of sanitation.

5. It hampers reformation process and prison officers find it difficult to manage

the daily affairs of the jails.

6. It leads to further criminalisation and dominance of hardened criminals.

7. It poses serious threat to surveillance and security of the prisons leading to

riots and indiscipline.

8. Due to overcrowding especially because of increasing number of undertrials, it

is difficult to arrange adequate Escort for production in the courts.

9. Overcrowding leads to adverse Inmate official ratio. The Indian prisons had a
strength of 39,687 Jail Officials to take care of 3,73,271 inmates which
amounts to 1 Jail Official per 9 inmates(year 2006). The highest number of
inmates per jail official was reported from Bihar (25) followed by Jharkhand
(24) and Gujarat (17)26. In Amritsar Jail, around 250 prison officers are posted
against total prison population of 2550 (in 2008) amounting 10.60 inmates per
official.

25
Supra Note 6, p.32
26
Supra Note 9

60
3.6 Conclusion
Overcrowding is prevalent in the prisons of India and it has rising trend over
the years. It is one of the important factors which have far reaching implications on
basic human rights of prisoners. The growth rate of prison population in Indian
prisons during 2005 over 2001 is found to be 14.26 percent which shows an average
annual growth rate of 3.56 percent. In absolute number, it translates into 11,183
additional prisoners per year. The overcrowding in Indian prisons as on 1 January
2006 is found to be 145.4 percent which is much higher than in the UK (112.2
percent) and USA (107.9 percent). The total prison population in India is 3, 58,368
against the authorised capacity of 2, 46,497 prisoners as on 1 January 2006. Around
0.03 percent of the total Indian population is confined in the jails in 2006.

As regards Amritsar Central Jail, overcrowding remains more than 200

percent from 2004 onwards which is an alarming situation. It went up to 255 percent
in September 2008 which is much higher than the national percentage. In one barrack
overcrowding was estimated as 314 percent whereas it was 437 in the other barrack.
In 2008, more than 2550 inmates were accommodated in Amritsar Central Jail against
the capacity of 1000.

The main causes of overcrowding can be enumerated as follows:

a. Shortage of adequate accommodation: The trend of overcrowding in Indian

prisons during the period 2001 to 2005 shows an increase in spite of addition
of fresh capacity under the Modernisation of Prison Scheme launched by the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India jointly with the States from
the financial year 2002-2003. The sleeping berths to provide space to sleep are
in broken shape because of overcrowding which shows on the quality of life in
the prisons. There is no addition in the capacity of Amritsar Central Jail in the
last ten years.

b. Increasing number of Undertrial prisoners: Undertrials form a major part of

prison population in Indian Jails. However, the percentage of undertrials
ranges from 65 to 70 percent from 2001 to 2008. Increasing trend of
undertrials population is one of the major factors responsible for overcrowding

61
 of the prisons. Lalli (2000) has also pointed out that undertrials population is
one of the key factors responsible for overcrowding of the prisons.

c. Lack of uniform and adequate policy of probation, parole, remission and

premature release: There are certain class of convicted prisoners in the Indian
Jails who should have been released from the custody if the Administration
adopts an impartial and independent mechanism of Probation, Parole,
Remission and Commutation of sentence and other forms of Pre-mature
release. Since the number of such convicts is very large, it is one of the basic
reasons for overcrowding.

Overcrowding adversely affects health and hygiene of prisoners and overall living
conditions including quality of food. It also leads to indiscipline and recidivism and
thus hampers the process of reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners.

3.7 Suggestions to Reduce Overcrowding

The following measures are suggested to reduce overcrowding in the prisons:

1. Construction of new prisons and increase the capacity of existing prisons: It is

urgent need to construct new prisons to accommodate the prison population.
The Government of India has already initiated ‘Modernization of Prison
Scheme’ from the financial year 2002-2003 for this purpose. Since prison is a
state subject in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, it is the
responsibility of the states to coordinate with the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India to get maximum benefit of this scheme for the
construction of new prisons as well modernisation of existing prisons.

2. To reduce the number of undertrial prisoners: The following steps should be

taken to reduce the number of undertrials:

a. By expeditious disposal of undertrial cases by giving priority to the

cases of persons on remand over the cases of accused already on bail;

b. By holding Special Courts and Special Lok Adalats in prisons;

62
 c. Implementation of the provisions of Plea bargaining under section 265
A to 265 L of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 which have been
inserted by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment ) Act 2005;

d. Utilization of provisions for grant of bail in terms of newly enacted

section 436A of Cr.P.C brought into existence by the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Amendment) Act 2005;
e. By extending Video- Conferencing facilities for conducting trial in
courts
3. It is also suggested to adopt uniform and adequate policy of parole, probation,
remission and premature release.

--- --- ---

63