CHAPTER IV

HISTORY OF PRISON ADMINISTRATION IN

INDIA

1 HISTORICAL EVLUTION OF PRISONS IN ANCIENT

INDIA

India has been the cradle of an ancient civilization where

the practice of state-craft was one of the prime preoccupations of

the society. The King ruled by “dharma” which prescribed a code

of conduct for each individual in accordance with his place and

function in the social order. The concept of justice was

fundamental to the practice of “dharma”. Every member of the

society was required to abide by the rules and norms of the society

and any transgression was to be punished. Even the King was not

above them. This gave rise to the development of the system of

administration of justice laying down punishment for the

wrongdoer. When wrong-doer happened to be high and mighty, a

holy war had to be waged to vindicate “dharma”. The Mahabharat

War was necessitated for such a cause. The Kauravas who were

the rulers violated the dictates of “dharma” and had to be punished.

 - 77 -

Thus punishment for wrong doing was fundamental to the judicial

system developed in ancient India.

However, during the Vedic period, which was about one

thousand years earlier than the age of Manu, administration of

justice was not strictly a part of the duties of the state. All crimes

were treated as torts. Offences like murder, theft and adultery find

mention, but there is nothing to indicate that the king or any officer

on his behalf acted as judge and pronounced judgment in ci vil and

criminal offences. According to some scholars, the “Sabhapati” of

the later Vedic period might have been a judge. But his duties and

functions have greater resemblance with those of a governor than

of a judge.1 AS. Altekar holds the view that usually the

aggrieved party had itself to take such steps which could redress

him. Distraint of the defendant or the accused by the plaintiff his

sitting before the latter’s house and not allowing him to move out

till his claim was satisfied or wrong righted was a well-established

practice in Vedic India.2

l.Indra J.Singh, Indian Prison-A sociological Enquiry-Concept

Publishing Company, Delhi 1979, P-17.

2.A. S. Altekar, State and Government in Ancient India, Jaihendra

Press, Delhi, 1958, P.245.
 - 78-

The Rig Vedic period developed the idea of a divine

cosmic order called Riti or Rta. A.L.Basham defined it as “the

regularity of the universal process”.3 It was “ perhaps the

forerunner of the later concept of Dharma. In the Asokan

inscriptions and some other Buddhist sources it seems to have the

broad general meaning of “righteousness”, but in legal literature it

may perhaps be defined as the divinely ordained norm of good

conduct, varying according to clan and caste. In this context,

AL.Basham says, “we translate it as the ‘Sacred Law”’.4

“Riti” was the main basis of law in this period and it was

the “Sabha” or popular village assembly rather than the king who

tried to arbitrate when it was feasible to do so. This helps us to

conjecture that there was no prison in the Vedic period. The house

of the accused served the purpose of a jail and he was practically

imprisoned in his own house till he managed to compensate the

plaintiff.5

3.AL.Basham, The Wonder that was India, Macmillan Co., New

York, 1959,P.l 13.
4. Ibid, P.113.
5.Indira J.Singh-Indian Prisons-P.17
 - 79-

A well developed judicial system emerged with the

composition and adoption of the “Dharmasutras” and “Dharma

Shastras The earliest of them came from Manu who is regarded

as the first law giver of India. The other important works are the

commentaries of Yajnavalkya, Visnu and Narada, These great

authors derived their ideas and principles from the Vedic literature

called Shrutis and Smritis. The Shrutis are believed to have been

directly revealed to their authors and are, therefore, of greater

sanctity than the Smritis. The Shrutis were “heard” and the Smritis

“remembered”. The smritis belonged to the post-Vedic period and

contained sutras and shastras which were religious in nature and

enjoyed universal validity and authority. These laws were enforced

by social approval and by the dread of hell after death, but not by

the force of the State.6 The laws of ancient India were not the

commands of the King or sovereign nor measures adopted by the

legislature. They were the product of the teachings and sayings of

the saints who interpreted religion through dharma. It should be

remembered that the practice of dharma changed with the change

in the social customs and practices and this, in turn, brought about

6. A.L .Basham, The Wonder that was India, P.115

 - 80-

changes in laws. It was the pious duty of die king to enforce the

laws and punish the wrong-doers. If he failed in discharging it, he

would find himself in hell after death.

Though punishment was considered to be of great social

and religious significance since the Vedic period and even earlier,

the concept of imprisonment as a form of punishment was found

absent. The Dharmasutras and Dharma Shastras rarely mention die

•7

word “prison” or “jail” or “Jailor” or anything corresponding to it.'

The Sanskrit term “danda” literally means a stick, staff or rod

which symbolizes punishment It has been justly remarked that it

stood for retribution, restraint and reformation. Gautama held that

the word “danda” which is derived from the root “dam” (to

restrain) meant that the king should check the miscreants and

wrong-doers by means of a staff.*8 It was believed that punishment

removed the guilt of misdeeds and the delinquent was freed from

the wrong he had done. The Mahabharat also records that the king

should set the criminals free from sin after inflicting punishment in

7.1J, Singh, Indian Prisons, P. 18

8. Sulda Das, Crime and Punishment in Ancient India, Abhinav
Publications, New Delhi, 1977- P. 55.
 - B1 -

accordance with law. According to Manu punishment was

suggested by the sages to cure unrighteousness and

to preserve righteousness unhampered. He envisaged the idea of

“Matsyanyaya” (the law of the big fish eating the small ones) in

the absence of a system of punishment. Visnu has pointed out that

a king should show honour to die righteous and inflict punishment

on the unrighteous. He further adds: “where punishment with a

black hue and red eye advances with irresistible might, the king

deciding cases justly, there the people will prosper”.9

It should be noted here that these law givers put great

emphasis on the justness of punishment. Manu, Kautilya and

Kamandaka held that “danda” should neither be too severe nor too

mild, but be just in accordance with the offences committed and

that while its application without afflicting the people led to good

fortune, its infliction for oppressing the subjects led to the

destruction of a king. The king should be neither unnecessarily

hard nor unnecessarily mild. Narada remarked that the nature of

the offence, its time and place should be carefully considered and

9. Ibid-P.56.
 - 82 -

the ability and motive of the offender should be thoroughly

examined before inflicting punishment. There was to be a search­

ing enquiry into the whole case and the punishment should be

decided after that only.10

The concept ofjust punishment gave rise to the necessity of

classification of punishments. Manu, Yajnavalkya and Bruhaspati

referred to four types of punishments: gentle admonition, harsh

reproof, fine and corporal punishment To these Brhaspati added

banishment Narada, however, made a broad two-fold division of

punishments-corporal and monetary Kamandaka prescribed three

types of punishment, namely execution(vadha), fine and corporal

punishment. In the works of Sana,, we find indirect references to

fines, rigorous imprisonment, amputation of limbs and execution .11

Evidently, imprisonment as a form of punishment was not

very much favoured by the ancient law givers. It was considered

mild and meant for lesser offences. Prison was mainly a place for

pre-trial detention. The earliest reference to a regular prison is

found in Kautilya’s Arthashastra in which the officers in charge of

10.Ibid-P.57
11.Ibid-P.57
 - 83 -

the prison were called “bandhanagaradhyaksha” (Superintendent),

Karaka(Jailor), and Sannidhata (Chief of the Prisons).

A number of foreign travellers visited India during the

Mauryan period and after. They have left accounts of the social life

and economic condition of the people during that period.

Meghasthenes and Fa-Hien found the Indians remarkably law-

abiding. Crime was a rare phenomenon. But Huen Tsang who

visited during the rule of Harsha Vardhan gives a somewhat less

favourable picture. There were hereditary bandits who robbed and

murdered their victims as a religious duty. Trading caravans were

being frequently plundered by them. Some later sources speak of

castes of professional thieves who had developed a high skill in

stealing. To suppress crime, curfew for two-and-a-half hours after

sunset and before dawn was prescribed in the Arthashastra. All

these accounts show that though crime was not considered a major

problem in ancient India, it existed and engaged the attention of

the rulers and jurists. To quote AL.Basham, “ a profound sense of

the insecurity of life and property underlies much of the legal

literature” of this period. He was of the opinion that ancient India

 - 84 -

was faced with a very serious crime problem, though the evidence

most of the foreign travellers suggests that the best ancient Indian
12
Kings managed to cope with it.

AL.Basham gives a graphic account of the nature of

punishment prevalent in ancient India. The penalties imposed for

criminal offences developec from two very ancient customs, the

wergeld ( a fine by which homicide and other heinous crimes

against the person were expiated) and religious penance imposed

for ritual offences. The early sutras laid down fines for the

punishment of murder - 1000 cows for killing a Kshatriya, 100 for

a Vaisya, and 10 for a Sudra or a woman of any class. Fines

ranging from a small copper coin to the confiscation of all property

were levied, and could atone for all but the most serious crime.

They were an appreciable source of income to the state. A

condemned person who cculd not pay his fine was reduced to

bondage until it was paid by his labour.13

The Smriti writers rarely mention imprisonment, but all

other sources show that it was common. Asoka was proud of the

12. AL.Basham, The Wonder that was India, p. 115.

13. Ibid. P.118.
 - 85 -

many gaol-deliveries which he had ordered in course of his reign;

according to a later tradition he is said to have maintained in his

unreformed early years a prison in which the most fiendish tortures

were inflicted, and from which no prisoner came out alive. Huen

Tsang mentions imprisonment as the usual form of imprisonment

under Harsha. Forced labour in the state mines and elsewhere is

mentioned as a punishment in the Arthashastra and no doubt

amounted to imprisonment of a very severe type.14

The ancient literature also contains an encouraging account

of prison reforms. From the moral edicts of Asoka which belong to

the later period of his rule it appears that many reformatory

measures were taken by him. According to Prof. R.R.Dikshitar,

Ashoka was familiar with the Arthashastra and spoke of as many

as twenty five jail-deliveries effected by him in the course of

twenty six years since his anointment to the throne.15 Another

measure introduced by him was the visit to the prisoners made by

the authorities once a day to enquire about their welfare. Specific

emphasis was laid on their health, living condition and work.

14. Ibid —P-119

15. R.R. Dikshitar, The Mauryan Polity, extracted from the Indian
Prison, IJ.Singh, P.21.
 - 86 -

There were strict rales for the function of the officers ofjail. Those

charged with ill-treatment of prisoners and violation of rale of law

were being punished. Some of the offences like ill-treatment of

prisoners in the matter of ration and bedding, transfer of prisoners

from one jail to another without assigning sufficient reason, and

illicit intercourse with female prisoners were meted with severe

punishment. There are references to grant of general amnesty to

prisoners. Kautilya advised release of prisoners-particularly the

young, old, disabled and the destitute-on King’s birth day and on

full moon days. Prisoners were also being released on the

acquisition of a new territory, anointment of the crown prince and

birth of a son to the king. Such description is also found in the

inscriptions of Asoka, especially the Fifth Rock Edict. There were

different kinds of prisons and male and female prisoners were

being kept in separate wards.16

2. PRISON SYSTEM IN MEDIAEVAL AND MUGHAL

PERIOD

The laws and the judicial system evolved during the anci-

16.I.J.Singh-Ind. Prison, P.21.

 - 87 -

ent period continued in the mediaeval era. They derived their

authority from the scriptures and legal commentaries based on the

injunctions of the “Shrutis” and “Smritis”. The code of Manu and

the works of Yagnavalkya, Visnu and Narada provided a sound

foundation for this system. The king administered and adjudicated

these laws and was himself bound by them though he enjoyed

certain immunities. Caste and class played an important role in the

determination of the gravity of the offence and the punishment- for

its commission. The system had the resilience to meet the needs of

the changing society as long as the changes were not radical.

Throughout the mediaeval period, the old system prevailed with

minor adjustment to meet the requirements of the time and place

The advent of Muslim rule, however, saw the beginning of

a new era. The Afghan invaders came as plunderers and left with

their booty leaving very little impact of their administration and

culture. But once they acquired territory and settled down to rule,

they brought in their system of administration and tried it on the

new soil. The Muslim sovereigns did not, of course, attempt to

tamper with the day to day administration of justice. The people

were allowed to be ruled by their own laws. But there was a

 - 88 -

sizable Muslim population by way of conversion or settlement and

they were ruled by Muslim or Quranic Laws.

During the Mughal period, sources of law and its character

remained Quaranic. The crudeness and insufficiency ofthe judicial

system were aggravated by the fact that die only law recognized by

the emperor and his judges was the Quaranic Law, which had

originated and grown to maturity outside India. It was supposed to

have been defined once for all within the pages of the Quaran.17

All the three sources of Indo-Mohammadan Law, i.e. Quran,

precedents (case laws) and opinions of jurists were trans-Indian.

Indian Qazis depended upon the digest of Islamic Laws and

precedents compiled by accepted Arabic writers. The last law

digest prepared in India was the ‘Fataua - i- Alamgiri’ during the

rule of Aurangzeb.18

Brahminic courts which followed Manu and Gentoo Code

- a loose mass of Sanskirit legal rules and sacred injunctions-

survived under Emperor Akbar. But the influence of Indo-Islamic

17. Jadunath Sarkar, Mughal Administration,extracted from Ind,

Prison, IJ.Singh, P.22.
18. Ibid.
 - 89 -

law continued to increase and extend its application to the wholeof

Moghul empire. Aurangazeb saw to it that administration ofjustice

in the courts followed this system.19

According to Muslim ideas of jurisprudence crimes are

grouped into three categories: offences against God, offences

against the State, and offences against private property. And

punishment for these offences are of four types: haad, tazir, qisas,

tashhir and hazat(lock-up). “Haad” is the punishment which is

supposed to be the right of God and can not be altered by any

human judge. “Qisas” constitute the retaliatory measures while

“tashhir” is public degradation. “Tazir” is punishment entitled to

reform the culprit and it could take one of these four forms; public

reprimand(Taqabi-9), dragging the offenders to floor (Jirr),

imprisonment or exile, and boxing the ear and scourging.20

Imprisonment was not encouraged under the Moghul laws

though it remained a form of punishment. It was mostly used as a

means of detention of the persons under trial. There were fortress-

19.1bid.
20. Ibid.
 - 90-

es situated in different parts of the country in which the criminals

were detained pending trial and judgment. There used to be three

“noble prisons or castles” in Moghul India at Gwalior,

Rathambore, and Rohtas. Criminals condemned to death were

usually sent to Ranthambore where they met their death two

months after their arrival. The Gwalior fort was reserved for the

“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.21

Occasionally, the prisoners were transferred from one place

to another. According to Muslim law, the qazis were supposed to

visit the prisons, enquire into the conditions there and release those

who showed signs of repentance. Usually, however, they neglected

their duty. The only redeeming feature for the prisoners was that

orders for their release were issued on special occasions. These

occasions were the birth of the crown prince, recovery of the

emperor or any of his sons from long illness, or some occasional -

21.A Mohanty & N.Hazary, IndianPrison System, Ashish

Publishing House, 1990, P.22.
 - 91 -

royal visit to a prison fortress. On the birth of Prince Salim,

Emperor Akbar ordered that all the prisoners in the imperial

dominions who were confined in the fortresses for “great

accounts” were to be released. On the occasion of the celebrations

of recovery from illness of his favourite princes, Begum Sahib,

Shahajahan ordered the release of prisoners in 1638.

During the Maratha period, the same partem of prison

administration as that of the Moghuls was followed. Imprisonment

was rarely treated as a form of punishment. Death, mutilation and

fine were the usual penalties inflicted on those held guilty m

proportion to the gravity of the offences. Prisons were mainly the

place of detention for the accused persons. Some rooms in forts

were reserved for prisoners and culprits who had committed

serious crimes. These were known as “bandikhanas” or “Adab-

Khanas”. The prisoners were treated according to their station in

life, and the nature of the crime they had committed. Persons of

lower caste and adulterous women, both of higher and lower

castes, were compelled to do hard labour in the construction of

fortresses. The ranks of prisoners determined their quantity and

quality of ration. They were given leave to visit their homes for
 - 92 -

attending religious rites like Shraddha. The Peshwa as the religious

head of the state paid them money for observing their rites and

rituals inside the jail. They were often released on the ground of

health. The political prisoners were being treated well inside the

jail .But their communication with the world outside and even with

their relations was prohibited.22

To sum up, there was no regular prison system in ancient or

mediaeval India. Prisons mainly served the purpose of detention of

accused persons under trial and political prisoners. Imprisonment

was not strictly a form of punishment. There was no regular prison

service and the living conditions in the prisons were very poor.

3 PRISON SYSTEM IN BRITISH INDIA - THE BIRTH

OF MODERN PRISON ADMINISTRATION.

The East India Company came to India for trade, but soon

started acquiring territories. The decline of the Mughal empire and

the weakness of the regional rulers made the task easy for it Some

22.Ibid.
 - 93 -

of the rulers accepted its suzerainty and paid tribute. A large chunk

of Indian territory, however, came under its direct control. The

company was faced with the task of introducing an efficient

system of administration in this territory.

In 1784 the British Parliament empowered East India

Company to rule India. Even before that, the Regulating Act had

been passed in 1773 which established the Supreme Court in

Calcutta to exercise all civil, criminal, admiralty and ecclesiastical

jurisdiction. It was evident that the Parliament wanted introduction

of English Rule of Law anc the English judicial system in India.

The English criminal law came to be applied to Indians. The

Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code which had

long been in preparation were enacted in 1859 and I860

respectively. The Indian Penal Code defined each and every

offence and prescribed punishment for it while the Criminal

Procedure Code laid down the procedure for investigation of crime

and prosecution of the criminals. The Penal Code prescribed

imprisonment of various forms and duration as the punishment for

most of the offences. This was the beginning of the modem prison

system.
 - 94 -

During that period, a movement for prison reforms had

already started in Great Britain and effective measures to introduce

elements of decency and humane administration were initiated. .4s

early as 1774, John Haward had first drawn attention to the terrible

state of the prison, but little permanent improvement followed and

it was not until well on the 19th century that prison reform really

commenced. Up to then the prisons remained much as Haward

described them, dark, unventilated, overcrowded, strongholds of

vice and debauchery, frequently swept by epidemics, where those

who had money spent it in drink and gambling and those who had

none were in risk of starvation. Even the separation of sexes was

not a universal rule, and beyond that, there was no attempt at

segregation or at the separation of the young from old, tried from

untried, old offenders from new recruits. As has been written in a

passage which may possibly be from the pen of Macaulay, the

English prisons of those days were places “ where many prisoners

died of disease and where the rest were educated so as to become

the future pests of society during the interval between their release

and their being hanged.” About 1820, however, the task of reform

was seriously undertaken. Mrs. Elizabeth Fry had begun her

labours among female prisoners in 1817; about the same epoch the
 - 95 -

Prison Discipline Society in its reports laid bare the horrors ofjail

life; and in 1824 the first essentials of decent prison administration

were laid down by Act of Parliament. Since then the work of

improvement has gone steadily forward.23

Under the East India Company Rule, there were 143 civil

jails, 75 criminal jails and 68 mixed jails with a population of

75,100 prisoners. Out of them, 65,700 were engaged in the

construction of roads. The administration of the jails was an

extention of the Moghul rule. The prisoners were treated as slave-

labourers and there was no attempt at improving their living

conditions and health and hygiene.24 The Directors of the

Company were unwilling to spend money on the jails. Under the

influence of the reforms in England, there was, however, an

attempt at modeling the jails on British lines. It was only in 1836

that a major step was taken in this direction by the Company.

Lord Macaulay had recommended that a committee be

appointed to suggest measures to improve discipline in prisons.

23 .Report of the Indian Jails Committee, 1919-20 Government

Central Press, Simla, 1920, P.29.
24. IJ.Singh- Ind. Prisons, P.23.
 - 96-

Consequently, on January 2,1836, a committee was appointed by

Lord William Bentick to study the conditions of discipline in

Indian prisons. The history of prison reforms in India maybe said

to have started with it.

This famous committee known as Prison Discipline

Committee had Lord Macaulay and some other distinguished

statesmen and jurists as members. It submitted its report to Lord

Auckland, the then Governor General in 1838, exactly two years

after its constitution. The report, a powerfully written document,

stated that in the great essentials of cleanliness, provision of food

and clothing and attention to the sick, the state of Indian prisons

compared favourably with those of Europe and “was highly

honourable to the Government of British India”. It criticized

severely, however, the corruption of the subordinate establishment,

the laxity of discipline and the system of employing the prisoners

in extra-mural labour on the public roads, “without exception the

worst method of treatment that has ever been provided under the

British Government for this class of persons”. Under the influence

of a reaction from these abuses, the committee threw the whole

weight of its authority in favour of increased rigour of treatment. It

deliberately rejected all such reforming influences as moral and

 - 97 -

religious teaching, education or any system of rewards for good

conduct and advocated the building of central prisons where the

convicts might be engaged, not in manufacture which it

condemned on somewhat theoretical and unsound grounds, but“ in

some dull, monotonous, wearisome and uninteresting task in which

there shall be wanting even the enjoyment of knowing that a

quicker release can be got by working the harder for a time”.

Inspite of this strange delivery, the report of the Committee

marked a definite advance in the path of Indian prison reform. Its

advocacy of proper buildings and intramural employment laid the

foundations for further progress, and its vigorous grasp of principle

placed the subject of prison reform in India on a higher plane than

might otherwise have been at once attained.25

The main recommendations of the Committee which

outlined the basis of a modem prison system were-

(i) that Central Jail should be built to accommodate not

more than 1000 prisoners each;

25.Report of Indian Jails Committee 1919-20, P.-30

 - 98 -

(ii) that Inspectors General of Prisons should be

appointed in all provinces;
(iii) that sufficient buildings should be provided in all
jails to accommodate prisoners confortably.26

In 1864, Sir John Lawrence’s examination of the

conditions of jails in India led Lord Dalhousie to appoint the

second Commission of Enquiry into Jail Mangement and

Discipline. British Government had taken over the administration

of India from the Company in 1858.

The decision of the Government was mainly due to

continued high death-rate highlighted by Sir Lawrence. This

committee included an expert element, the absence of which was

the weak point of the earlier one, and it was enabled to deal with

many points of detail authoritatively upon which experience had

gradually been accumulated.27 It found that in the preceding ten

years not less than 46,309 deaths occurred inside the prisons and

concluded that sickness and high mortality were mainly due to

overcrowding, poor ventilation, poor conservancy, poor drainage,

insufficient clothing, sleeping on the floor, want of personal

hygiene, inadequate water supply, extraction of labour from unfit

27.Report of Indian Jails Committee. 1919-20-P.30.

 - 99 -

prisoners and insufficient medical inspection. On the basis of its

recommendation. Government decided that all provinces would
have Civil Surgeons as Superintendents of District Jails.28

A third inquiry into prison administration was instituted

twelve years later when a Conference of Experts assembled in
Calcutta in January 1877. On this occasion the conference was
almost entirely composed of officials actually engaged in jail
work. By that time there were five enactments available in the
country governing the management of prisons in various States.
An Act for the better control of the Jails within die Presidency of
Bombay (1856); an Act for the regulation of Jails in the city and
Presidency of Bombay and enforcement of discipline therein
(1864), an Act for the regulation of Jails and enforcement of
discipline therein (Bengal-1864); Madras Jails Act (1869) and
Prisons Act (1870). The Prisons Act 1870 was made by the
Governor General in Council and the rest by the Governors in
Council. These Acts differed inter se on various important points
governing the principles and practices of prison management. The
remedy proposed by the Conference was the enactment of a prison
law which could secure uniformity of system at least on such
basic issues as reckoning of terms of sentence. On the basis of the
recommendations of the Conference, a draft Bill was actually
prepared, but as “circumstances were unfavourable to legislation,
the matter was postponed.”29

28. Mohanty and Hazaiy, Ind. Prison System, P.25,

29. All India Committee on Jail Reforms-1980-83, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Govt, of India- P.8
 - 100 -

In 1888, Lord Dufferin appointed the fourth Jail

Commission to examine jail administration. The object and scope

of the Commission were clearly spelt out in the Resolution:

“ There is on the part of the Governor-General in Council

no wish to reconsider the principles so laid down(by the earlier

committees), but an examination of the statistics of jails in

different provinces and even of prisons in the same province shows

that great diversity of practice exists in carrying the principles into

effect The Governor- General in Council is not to be understood

as advocating absolute uniformity of administration in all

provinces in connection with jail administration. He admits that

local circumstances must always give rise to diversities of practice.

But an examination of the provincial reports for some years

satisfied him that the divergencies in regard to the cost of

maintaining prisoners, in regard to their sanitary conditions, and in

regard to discipline point to the existence of defects which it is

desirable to remove.”30

30.1bid.
 - 101 -

The fourth commission was of the view that uniformity can

not be achieved without the enactment of a central Prisons Act. On

the basis of its recommendation, a consolidated Prisons Bill was

prepared. Its recommendations in regard to offences and

punishments were specially examined by a Conference of Experts

on Jail Management convened at Calcutta in 1892. The experts

were drawn from all the provinces and they provided in the Bill for

such punishments as gunny clothing, imposition of irons on hand

and feet, penal diet, solitary confinement and whipping.

Thus came into being the Prisons Act, 1894 which is still

the law governing management and administration of prisons in

India. Even after 50 years of independence, it has not been

replaced inspite of the fact that the objectives of prison

administration have undergone a transformation. The idea of

reformation of prisoners was alien to the Act But the

administrative reforms introduced by it should not be lost sight of.

The Act brought about uniformity in prison administration

throughout the country. Among prisoners under the age of 21,

those “ who have arrived at puberty” were to be separated from

“those who have not”. Civil prisoners should be separated from

 - 102 -

criminal prisoners and the under-trials from the convicts. The

Medical Officer has to visit daily the prisoners confined in the

cells. The hours of work for those convicted to rigorous

imprisonment were limited to nine. The powers of the subordinate

staff to inflict punishment were done away with. The

Superintendent could only exercise such power. Though the Act

put great emphasis on the principle of deterrence, it was a mile­

stone in the process of modernization of prison administration.

It may be stated here that the three committees constituted

by the British government made a great contribution to the prison

administration of the country. Following the recommendations of

the Macaulay Committee, the first Central Prison was set up in

Agra in 1846. The first Inspector General of Prisons was appointed

in North-Western Province in 1844. By 1852, other provincial

governments had started appointing Inspectors-General. Central

JaisI were also constructed at Benares, Meerut, Jabalpur and Naini.

The second committee devoted itself to the task of improving

living conditions, health and hygiene. Civil Surgeons were

appointed as Superintendents of Jails. The third and the fourth

Committees codified the prison laws. The Prison Act came into
 - 103 -

being in 1894 followed by The Reformative Schools Act in 1897

and Prisoners Act in 1900. But these were all measures for
administrative reforms. The concept of reformation of the
prisoners was not then known. Dr. Walker and Dr. Lethbridge, the
prison official whose labours had resulted in the enactment of
prison laws, can hardly be found fault with for this. Since then,
“the science of prison administration had made great advances.
New views regarding the origin and causes of crime have been
propounded, new experiments in prison management have been
carried out, and new methods of preventing crime have been
invented or developed. It is no reproach to the men of 1888 and
earlier days that they did not foresee these developments. It would
have been extraordinary had they done so, for the new light has
come largely from the very different atmosphere of America.”31

The process of review of prison administration through

committees did not come to an end with the enactment of Prisons
Act. The story of reforms in the prisons of America had stirred the
entire civilized world. New experiments were being taken up in
England, Australia and Europe. In this context, constitution of
another committee became inevitable. The Government of India
formed the Indian Jails Committee in April 1919 under the
Chairmanship of Sir Alexander G.Cardew ICS. There were six
other members including two Indians. The Committee visited jails

31 .Report of India J C. 1919-20,P.31

 - 104 -

in England, U.S.A., Japan, Philiipines and Hong Kong and also ail

important jails of India and Burma. It submitted its report in 1920

which is a land mark in the history of prison reforms in India. For

the first time in the history of prisons, ‘reformation’ and

‘rehabilitation’ of offenders were identified as the objectives of

prison administration. “ The aim of Prison Administration is the

prevention of further crime and restoration of the criminal to

society as a reformed character, “the Committee declared. The

Report was a comprehensive document covering all aspects of

prison administration.

The recommendations of the committee were far reaching.

The need for a well trained and well paid staff selected and

recruited after careful scrutiny, was emphasized. The practice of

excessive employment of convict officers as a measure to meet the

inadequacy of paid staff was rejected. The committee

recommended strongly the setting up of separate jails for different

categories of prisoners. Children’s Courts for hearing cases of

juvenile delinquency and Remand Homes for housing them. It also

made a forceful plea for introduction of warning, probation and

fine or work in lieu of short term imprisonment.

 - 105 -

There were several reasons for the non-implementation of

the recommendations of the committee. The struggle for freedom

had taken the form of a mass movement and the most popular form

of protest was to court arrest and undergo detention or sentence of

imprisonment. The jails were getting filled to the brim and

temporary camp jails were being set up. The Government could

hardly take up reforms at such a time.

The Constitutional changes brought about by the

Government of India Act, 1935 resulted in the transfer of the

subject of jails to the control of provincial governments. This

reduced the possibility of uniform implementation of the

recommendations. But it produced a spectacular event. Congress

governments came into being in many states in the election held

under this Act. Since the freedom fighters had the first hand

experience of the conditions in the prisons, they took initiative in

introducing reforms. During the period 1937 to 1947, Committees

for jail reforms were formed in Mysore, U.P. and Bombay. Several

progressive legislations like The Bombay Probation of Offenders

Act (1936), The C.P. and Berar Conditional Release of Prisoners

 - 106 -

Act (1936) and the U.P. First Offenders Probation Act(l 938) were

passed. The U.P. Government started the first jail training school
32
of the country at Lucknow m 1940,

4. PRISON REFORMS AFTER MPEPNPENCE.

It was natural that the new rulers of independent India

would turn their attention to prison reforms as one of the most

important items in their agenda. All of them without exception had

long years of incarceration throughout the course of freedom

struggle. They had not only suffered all the privations and

humiliations that the jails meted out to the prisoners, they devoted

their time in the jail to the cause of prison reforms. Mahatma

Gandhi described himself as “an old and experienced prisoner”

and believed that the most important task is to “undo the mischief

done in prisons where the environment hardens the criminal

tendency, and in the case of innocent prisoners and they learn how

to commit crime without being detected.”33 Regarding economy

in prison administration, he had a very constructive suggestion:

32. Report of the All India Committee on Jail Reform, 1980-

83,p.l0
33. Young India, 18th February, 1926, extracted from the Report of
AIC on J.R, 80-83, P-bitroduction(ii).
 - 107 -

“ I know that revision of classification, according to my

suggestion, means a revolution in the whole system. It

undoubtedly means more expenses and a different type of men to

work the new system. But additional expenses would mean

economy in the long run. The greatest advantage of the proposed

revolution would no doubt be a reduction in the crimes and

reformation of the prisoners.”34

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, another experienced prisoner

during freedom struggle, felt strongly about the necessity of prison

reforms. The following passage from the “Prison Land” taken from

his book, “India and the World” expresses the depth of his

anguish;

“ High walls and iron gates cut off the little world of prison

from the wide world outside. Here in this prison world everything

is different; there are no colours, no changes, no movement, no

hope, no joy for the long term prisoner, the lifer’. Life runs its

dull round with a terrible monotony; it is all flat desert

34.1bid- Young India- May 8,1924.

 - 108 -

land with no high points and no places to quench one’s thirst or

shelter one from the burning heat. Days run into weeks, and weeks

into months and years till the sands of life run out x x x Even the

voice of pain is hushed, the cry of agony can not be heard beyond

the high walls.”35

In the same poignant tone. Pandit Nehru dwells on the

ultimate result of imprisonment:

“The vast majority of these (long term convicts) go to

prison mostly for long periods over which their punishment is

spread out. It is a continuous torture, a never-ceasing pain, till

mind itself grows dull and the body is blunted to sensation. The

criminal type develops, the ugly fruit of our gaols and our criminal

law, and there is no fitting him in then with the social machine

outside. He is the square peg everywhere, with no roots, no home,

suspicious of everybody, being suspected everywhere, till at last he

comes back to his only true resting place, the prison, and takes

3 5.Ibid- Introduction (v)

 109-

up again the tin or iron bowl which is his faithful companion there.

Do our judges even trouble to think of cause and effect, of the

inevitable consequences of an act or decision? Do they realize that

their courts and prisons are the principal factories for the

production and stamping of criminal type?”36

Pandit Nehru then puts a question;

“Why are punishments given - as Society’s or Government’s

revenge or with the object of reforming?” He gives his own answer

in the form of another question: “Do judges or prison officers ever

think that the unhappy wretch before them should be made into a

person capable of filling his place in society when he comes out of

prison?”37

There is perhaps no stronger sentiment expressed anywhere

on the question of prison reforms. Pandit Nehru did not think that

3 6.Ibid-Intraduction (vi)
37. Ibid-Introduction(xii)
 - 110 -

the reforms required great expenditure and the State can not afford
them. On the other hand, he wanted the jails to be converted to
centres of profit:

“ It must not be thought that these changes will involve

much extra expenditure. If properly run on modem industrial lines,
the prisons can not only be seif- supporting but can actually make
a profit after providing for all the additional amenities suggested.
There is absolutely no difficulty in introducing the changes except
one-the absolute necessity of having a competent .human staff
fiilly understanding and appreciating the new angle of vision and
eager to work it.”38'

From the above extracts, one can well imagine how eager
the first Prime Minister of free India would have been to bring
about a transformation of the Indian Jails. This sentiment was not
confined only to Gandhi and Nehru, it found expression in the
work and utterances of all the leaders of free India. Consequently,
there was a great spurt in the activities for prison reforms all over
the country. As a first step, new Jail Reforms Committees were
formed in many states. The following are some of the Committees
which made notable recommendations;

38.1bid.- Introduction (iii)

 - Ill -
;

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

2. Madras Jail Reforms Committee-1950-51.

3. Jdail Reforms Committee of Orissa -1952-55.

4. Jail Reforms Committee of Travancore and Cochin-

1953-55.

5.U.P. Jail Industries Enquiry Committee -1955-56.

6. Maharastra Jail Industries Reorganisation Committee,

1958-59.

It is ,however, unfortunate that the zeal did not last long.

The Reports and the recommendations of the Committees were

consigned to the archives. The problem of tackling poverty

through development of industry and agriculture overwhelmed our

leaders. With the memory of freedom struggle receding, the

urgency of prison reforms which required initial investment of

funds diminished. However, a number of positive results were

achieved. There was provision of parole and furlough for

prisoners. Wages, even though nominal, were paid to them for the

work done. Open prisons were started in several states, A Jail

Officers Training School was set up at Pune. All this was no mean

achievement.
 - 112 -

While State Governments were busy setting up committees,

the Central Government was not idle. It invited technical

assistance from the United Nations which deputed Dr

W.C.Reckless an expert on Correctional Work, to study prison

administration in the country and to suggest ways and means of

improving it Dr Reckless visited India during 1951-52 and made a

lasting contribution to the prison service of India. His report, ‘Jail

Administration in India’ laid emphasis on developing probation

and correctional services. On his recommendation, department of

correctional administration was started in the states. He saw the

need of greater coordination among the prison officials of the

country and suggested a conference of the Inspectors-General

every alternate year. In 1952 he got such a conference convened at

Bombay. At his instance, Government of India appointed the All

India Jail Manual Committee ini957 to prepare a model Manual.

The Committee prepared a Model Manual and presented it to the

Government of India in 1960. It contained scientific guidelines for

the corrective treatment of offenders. It is unfortunate that the

model Manual has not yet been adopted by most of the states.

Dr. W.C.Reckless had recommended formation of a central

body for coordinating the prison administration among the states.

 - 113 -

Accordingly the Central Bureau of Correctional Services was set

up under the Ministry of Home Affairs in 1961. The functions

assigned to it were (1) to formulate uniform policy on jail

administration, probation, after care, correctional service, etc.,(2)

to promote research and staff training and (3) to exchange

information between India and foreign Governments and with the

United Nations.

In 1972 Government of India appointed a Working Group

on Prisons to review the progress in the implementations of

various recommendations. In its report submitted in 1973, it

emphasized the need for a national policy on prisons. It suggested

that government should make effective use of alternatives to

imprisonment as a measure of sentencing policy. The development

of prisons and correctional administration should no longer remain

divorced from the national development process. It recommended

the inclusion of certain aspects of prison administration in the Five

Year Plan, the amendment of the Constitution to include the

subject of prisons and allied institutions in the Concurrent List, the

enactment of suitable legislation by the center and the States, and

the revision of State Prison Manuals. Another important

 - 114 -

recommendation of the Working Group was setting up of a

training institute in each state as well as regional institutes in

different parts of the country/9

Some of the recommendations of the Working Group were

implemented. A grant of Rs.2 crore was made in 1977-78 budget

for modernization of prison administration. The grant was

increased to Rs.4 crore next year. In 1977 the Central Government

formulated a scheme to give financial assistance to the states.

Accordingly the Seventh Finance Commission recommended

allocation of Rs.48.31 crore to eleven states for five years (1971 -

1984). Since then, similar allocations are being made for the states.

There was significant improvement in the physical conditions of

the jails after receipt of Central assistance

Inspite of all these measures taken, all was not well in the

state of India jails. A conference of the Chief Secretaries of the

States was convened in 1979.lt recommended several measures for

reducing overcrowding and creating separate facilities for the care,

39. Ibid.-P.14.
 - 115 -

treatment and rehabilitation of women offenders. A number of

measures for improving training and discipline were also

suggested. But the pity is that the Government considered

constitution of committees and not the implementation of their

recommendations as the solution to the problem. When, in the late

seventies, there were frequent disturbances in Tihar Jail and also

in the jails of many states, the Government of India appointed

another committee under the Chairmanship of Justice A.N.Mulla

in July 1980. Like its predecessor of 1910-20, the Committee made

a thorough scrutiny of the prevailing conditions in the jails and

produced an epochmaking document containing valuable

recommendations. It made a strong plea for correctional and after

care measures and for the creation of a humane and reformation-

oriented cadre of jail officers. It pleaded for abolition of capital

punishment and condemned the addition of Section 433 A in the

Criminal Procedure Code in very strong terms and advised its

deletion as it prolonged the imprisonment of life convicts without

any reason. The following are some of its important

recommendations:
 -116 -

(1) Directive principle on National Policy on Prison should

be formulated and embodied in Part IV of the

Constituion.

(2) The subject of prisons and allied institutions should be

included in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule

of Constitution of India.

(3) All the Acts pertaining to Prison administration should

be consolidated and a new uniform and comprehensive

legislation enacted by the Parliament.

(4) Imprisonment for life should be imprisonment for a

fixed term extending over a reasonable period of time

which may be determined by the legislature.

(5) Revision of Jail Manual should be taken up by the

States on a priority basis in line with the Model Manual

drafted by the Jail Manual Committee.

(6) Probation, correctional and After Care Services should

be strengthened and made effective.40

40.Ibid.-Vol.-n.
 - 117 -

The committee had submitted its report in 1983. Though

twelve years have elapsed, the implementation of its

recommendations is not yet in evidence. One of the reasons why

its implementation has been neglected is the absence of an

effective machinery in the Government of India to take up the

task. The Central Bureau of Correctional Services had been

transferred to the Ministry of Welfare and renamed National

Institute of Social Defence.

Yet another committee was constituted by the Government

of India in 1986 to go into the problems of women prisoners and

suggest remedy. It was headed by Justice V.RKrishna Iyer and

was styled National Expert Committee on Women Prisoners. It

submitted its report in June 1987 and some of its important

recommendations are given below :

1. Provision of a national policy on the women prisoners

in India.

2. Construction of separate prisons for women.

3. Proper care of children accompanying women prisoners

or bom to them in the prisons.

4. Suitable work programme for women.

 - 118 -

5.Provision of legal aid.

6. Maintenance of proper coordination among the police,

courts and prisons for providing due justice to women prisoners. 41

There is thus no dearth of ideas and concrete suggestions

for improving the conditions of the jails in India. There is also no

lack of public and political will for their implementation. The

resource crunch is, of course, there as it is there in the other

spheres of Governmental activity. It is not anybody’s case that the

State should take up prison reforms at the cost of other

developmental activities. The ease made out forcefully by the

Working Group and later by the Mulla Committee is that

development of prisons should be integrated with the national

programme of development and a fair share of resources should be

allotted to it The plea has not gone in vain. Under a scheme for

modernization, the Central Government is providing assistance to

the States for the improvement ofjails. There is the necessity of a

separate body in the Ministry of Home Affairs for monitoring the

progress on a regular basis.

41. Mohanty and Hazary- Indian Prison System P.30.