Prison Reforms

Committee 1980-1983 (first committee)

Prison and person

Requirement of strong laws that determine prisoners are treated with certain kind of dignity.

Centre does not have authority to make detail guidelines with different prisoners

2016 reform India became member to International covenant

International obligation to protect rights of prisoners

Though we don’t have central legislature we have thus bill of 2016.

Maintenance of prisoners- chapter VI food.

Debate: average women needs 2400 calories per day. Women across countries cannot lay down single across the
country.

Prison manual.

Try to look to what you extent reality.

6.20 allowance:

Food not wasted

Time for eating

Very difficult to observe, ensure, enforce.

The committee a large chunk is prison authorities

Complain about food

Enquired into by supervisor, tough prisoners do this.

Shall be reported superintendent.

Complain-valid.

Prisoner also punish of false complaint

No record of this (complaint regarding food registered)

How many times prisoners punished.

Never used : no one knows that

Vigilance in food supply.

Food section- there are very detailed guidelines to protect human dignity.

What Can be done and should not be done prescribed in the manual

Quantity/quality/prisoners.
They are required to maintain register of this

Prisoner lawyer: these documents very handy.

Prison act and manual read. Record to be maintained mandatory?

Helpful in public activist, condition of prisoners, fighting for prisoners.

Clothing:

Convicts study shall wear ordinary private clothing deposited in prison.

Superintendent supply clothes proper.

Not to make him noticeable

Issue of sandals to prisoners

Huge restriction on sandals.

Used clothes

Prisoners to wash clothing. Once every week.

In hot climate: far too restrictive.

Prescribed guidelines for soap and washing powder.

Surrender kit: no requirement of giving fresh cloths

A complete factor talks about prison architecture.

How prisons has to be construed. (Look at all kinds of things taken into account)

Adequate resources for connectional program and all.

Reformatory aspect

Emphais on successful implementation.

How many prisoners are according to manual?

Award Magsaysay when she was inspector general for Jodhpur jail for starting upaasana program jail organised for
healthy living of prison.

3 types of dormataries, Single room for studying, Provision for washrooms., Architecture for everything.,

Not applicable to open prisoners.

There is also open prisoners concept.

We also have prison policy

Providing defination of prisoners.

It includes polic lock up does not in defination of prisoners.

Why prison guidelines not for police lock-up.

One area looking into what are norms for this.

Prison reforms.

1983 all India Jail reforms. Mulla Committee report. (Prison and Prisoners)

2016: series of judgement madan lokur( 2014: former CJ Lodha written to CJ about inhumane condition of prison,
open letter) letter trigger fir SC act letter for initiating PIL. Suno Motu cognisance.

Inhumane condition in prison

2016 case inhumane condition in 1382 prisons division bench

Sceptical indian jurisprudence filled with such judgement. List of direction toh executive, lamenting over inhumane
condition, police atrocities.

Human rights jurisprudence, complete booklet especially related to Prisons.

Things remain unimplemented is possible.

Keep doing whatever you do despite these pessimistic feelings.

Law of concerns about inhumane condition: taking into account prison manuals.

Govt did great job in forming manuals but implementation to it is important.

Social justice bench: open letter on open prison

Development: 2005 amendment in crpc they got new section 436 A:

Purpose: prison ko decongest Prisons are congested with undertrials.

I. Birbal Maharia v The Director General of Prisoners and another (Open Jail asked for Parole from
the authorities)
The person in this case asked for Parole but his Parole was rejected by the authorites thrice. He brought the
matter before the court under article 226. The court decided that the valid committee has to be formed to
look into the matter of the parole and the whole procedure prescribed in the act has to be followed.
Procedure is as follows:
Rule 2(g) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules 1958 reads as follows :-

2 (g) District Parole Advisory Committee means a committee consisting of the following which will decide
as to release the Prisoners on First, Second and Third parole revocation of the orders of Prisoners released
on parole and other like matters arising under the rules which the District Parole Advisory Committee
(hereinafter be referred to as "District Committee" is required to deal with :-

1. District Magistrate                   Chairman

2. Supreintendent of Police              Member

3. Superintendent/Dy. Supdt., Jail       Member

4. Probation Officer                     Member

The quorum for transacting the business of the Committee shall be two including the Chairman. Where the
Chairman is unable to attend the meeting of the Committee, the proceedings of the Committee shall be
 forwarded to the Chairman for his approval. In case the Chairman decides to take into consideration in the
next meeting of the Committee which shall be attended by the Chairman also.

6. A reading of the Rule 2(g) makes it clear that the meeting is required to be presided over by the District
Magistrate and other members of the Committee are Superintendent of Police, Superintendent/Dy. Supdt.,
Jail and Probation Officer of the District. In the instant case the meeting was attended not by the
Superintendent of Police but by the Additional Superintendent of Police as representative of the
Superintendent of Police. Further, one officer designated as Assistant Legal Remembrancer, Collectorate,
Sikar, also attended the meeting.

II. Re-inhumane conditions in 1382 Prison (2013)

State of Maharstra and Ors v Asha Arun Gwali and Anr.

The present petition arose out of a concern shown by former Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti on four issues,
namely, overcrowding in prisons; unnatural deaths of prisoners; gross inadequacy of staff; and the
available staff being untrained or inadequately trained.

Earlier efforts on the rights of the prisoner

 Report of the All India Committee on Jail Reforms, 1980-1983, commonly known as the Mulla
Committee.
 1987, the Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer Committee on Women Prisoners, submitted its report, which
dealt with issues concerning women prisoners as a marginalised group and gave several significant
recommendations.
 The Law Commission of India also dealt with the rights of prisoners in its 78th Report particularly
dealing with congestion of undertrial prisoners in jails.
 The Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) also gave a report in 2007 under the
Chairmanship of its Director General. Amongst other things, a National Policy on Prison Reforms
and Correctional Administration was also framed.
 Private and individual efforts, including a Report on Prison Visiting System in India by the
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in 2005

Directions issued by the court in this case

To constitute SC committee on Prison reforms

1. Former judge of SC as its chair

2. Inspector General of Police, Bureau of Police Research and Development as its Member
3. Director General (Prisons) Tihar Jail, New Delhi as its Member.
Committee will provide suggestions on
1. Review the implementation of the Guidelines contained in the Model Prison Manual 2016 by
States and Union Territories (UT's).
2. Review the implementation by the States and UTs of the recommendations made by the
Parliamentary Committee on Empowerment of Women in its report tabled in the Parliament
titled ‘Women in Detention and Access to Justice,’ and the advisory issued by the Ministry of
Home Affairs (MHA) in this regard.
3. To review the two training manuals for prison personnel prepared by Bureau of Police
Research & Development (BPR&D), ‘Training Manual of Basic Course for Prison Officers
2017’ and ‘Training Manual of Basic Course for Prison Warders 2017’ and forwarded to
States and UTs. W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013 Page 8 of 14
4. Review the recommendations made in the report of the Ministry of Women and Child
Development in collaboration with the National Commission for Women and the National
Law University Delhi on ‘Women in Prisons’.
5. Review the recommendations made in the report of the National Commission for Women on
‘Inspection of Prisons/Jails/ Custodial Homes housing Women’.
 6. Review the implementation by States and UTs of the Guidelines contained in ‘Living
conditions in Institutions for Children in Conflict with Law’ prepared by the Ministry of
Women and Child Development (MWCD) and the Model Rules and Procedures prepared by
the MWCD under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016.
7. Review the status of the implementation of the guidelines and advisories issued by MHA to
the States and UTs.
8. The Committee may give its consolidated recommendations based on the above and suggest
measures to improve the implementation of the aforementioned guidelines and advisories,
subject to budgetary resources available with the States and the UTs. W.P. (C) No. 406 of
2013 Page 9 of 14
9. To examine the extent of overcrowding in prisons and correctional homes and recommend
remedial measures, including an examination of the functioning of Under Trial Review
Committees, availability of legal aid and advice, grant of remission, parole and furlough.
10. To examine violence in prisons and correctional homes and recommend measures to prevent
unnatural deaths and assess the availability of medical facilities in prisons and correctional
homes and make recommendations in this regard.
11. To assess the availability and inadequacy of staff in prisons and correctional homes and
recommend remedial measures.
12. To suggest training and educational modules for the staff in prisons and correctional homes
with a view to implement the suggestions.
13. To assess the feasibility of establishing Open Prisons, the possibility of and the potential for
establishing Open Prisons in different parts of the country and give effect to the
recommendations.
14. To recommend steps for the psycho-social well-being of minor children of women prisoners,
including their education and health. W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013 Page 10 of 14
15. To examine and recommend measures for the health, education, development of skills,
rehabilitation and social reintegration of children in Observation Homes, Places of Safety and
Special Homes established under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015.
16. .Generally, any other recommendation that the Committee may deem appropriate, fit and
proper in furtherance of reforms in prisons and correctional homes.
17. The Committee while giving its suggestions and recommendations may also suggest changes
or amendments to various guidelines contained in the Modern Prison Manual, 2016 and also
various directives issued by the Government of India.

III. Jasveer Singh v State of Punjab (Conjugal rights and rights of procreation of prisoners)
The learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition praying for enforcement of their
right to have conjugal life and procreate within the jail premises. The Hon’ble Court delved into the concept of right
to procreation and held that the right to procreation survives incarceration and falls within the right to life
guaranteed under the Article 21 of the Constitution.

Facts

The principal issues in the instant case was a) Whether ‘right to life’ and ‘personal liberty’ guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution include the right of convicts or jail inmates to have conjugal visits or artificial insemination
(in alternate)?, and b) Whether penalogical interest of the State permits or ought to permit creation of facilities for
the exercise of right to procreation during incarceration?

Judgment

The Court held that the Right to Life under Article 21 includes the right of convicts or jail inmates

to have conjugal visits or artificial insemination. The penological interest of the State ought to permit the creation of
facilities for exercise of the right to procreation during incarceration in a phased manner, as there is no inherent
conflict between the two but it would however be subject to the reasonable restrictions and security concerns. The
Court further passed directions to constitute a Jail Reforms Committee entrusted with the task of full realization of
the aforesaid right.

However, the Court dismissed the aforesaid petition on the ground that the jail infrastructure, as it exists, does not
permit conjugal visits in jail, but held the same to be sufficient condition for parole.

Analysis

The court did a balancing act by recognizing convicts’ and prisoners’ fundamental right and holding right to
procreation as a sufficient condition for parole/furlough. At the same time, it passed directions to constitute a Jail
reforms committee to give recommendations for realization of the right to procreation within jail premises.

And

State of Tamilnadu and Ors

Prisoner’s right to dignity cannot be taken away and therefore conjugal rights cannot be denied. Conjugal rights
visits must be concern of authorities. (Article 21).

Conjugal visits lead to strong family bonds and keep family functional rather than the family becoming
dysfunctional due to prolonged isolation and lack of sexual contact.

Reformatory part.

Regina v Secretary of state for Home Department

Artificial insemination was allowed. Reasoning was provided on the above lines.

IV. (Wages)
(General Notes) Issue: correctional administration, wages prisoners supposed to get in prison:

Dispute wages: constitutional or not.

Phoolkumari v Office of Superintendent, Tihar Central Jail New Delhi and Anr.

Section 53 IPC: punishment defines simple imprisonment and rigourous with hard labour.

Simple imprisonment means for life automatically means rigorous imprisonment: SC

Prisoners

a. Undertrials prisoners
b. Criminal convict
c. Civil prisoners

Criminals for non-payment type

1. Old rule: under trials cannot make to do labor against his wishes, no forced labour for undertrials unless
they voluntarily request for it.

This is dicey in itself. Practically they don't entitled for wages but they work, undertrial population is so large many
a time constant complain. If under trial opts for doing work. Is he/she entitled to wages? Answer is yes if we
presumes.
 2. Those sentences to simple imprisonment, no labor can be imposed on them. Same category of under trials

2016 Bill: simple imprisonment can subject to work not rigorous but not more than 7 hours.(proposed) still bill.
Work for prisoners of simple imprisonment. (Large chunk)

3. Rigorous imprisonment with hard labour:

Question: section rigorous hard labour, convict are bound to do labour irrespective of their will?

Limitation is different, they can say no.

Section 45: prison Act 45(5) denial of prisoner 45(8) clear provisions anyone with rigourous if he she refuses that
will count as prison offence and punished by superintendent of police.

Long list of punishment. This makes it obligatory. Not subject to choice of party.

Question: is making a person do labour against his will violative of fundamental right.

A. Section 374 of IPC unlawful compulsorily labour.

If someone compel undertrial that could be offence 374 will not hit rigorous imprisonment.(lawful compulsorily
labour)

B. Article 23 of constitution of India

(State of Gujarat and ors.v Hon’ble High Court og Gujarat)

Very specific prohibits trafficking and forced labour. To make me to work which has no remuneration.

23(1) prohibits forced labour

23(2) saving provision person can make to do to serve public purpose (dangerous) western ideas.

The question has been Gujarat HC whether hit by article 23

Majority: though hit by 23(1) but saved by 23(2)

HC willing to accept that forced labour and fall in category of Begar but then ban against human trafficking is
subject to exceptions 23(2)

Ban against trafficking absolute but forced labour for public purpose.

Public purpose possibly be served by? Court answer purpose (theories of punishment)

Detrrance, reformation,

Reformation dominant objective - incarceration, every effort made to make person good.

Handsome money after serving punishment. This is public policy.

What public sevice served court tells by this. Reformation is important here. But it can be argued Something fit into
it. But it's probably not best thing to do.

State argument: try not to give good wages. They will give incentive to people wages to commit crime. Not be
granting attractive payment.

Argument not deter court for minimum wages.

Social imperative and empathetic for this.

Dissenting opinion

It cannot be said sentence of RI unconstitutional because prisoner forced to do hard labour, compulsory service.
Article 23 has no role to play.

Role and purpose of article 23 completely different.

Bringing forced labour of prisoner here is wrong premise.

Made to do as part of his crime. It is not Begar of prisom authorities put him to forced labour.

If not paid, it can not said.

No one is questioning authority of prison act.

There will be no violation of Article 23 to do hard labour and are not paid. Merely paying wages not save it from
begar.

Article 23 does not have any relation with it. : Prison reform must.

Message must be loud and clear that it is not paid. Too much stress should not be paid.

Compulsary labour as part of punishment.

Not forced labour.

Now this we don't have to establish public purpose. Don't legitimise it.

How wages are to be distributed?

Chapter 7 of prison act: employment of prisoners

Civil criminal liberally

Those undergo RI has to go hard labour-11 hours

SI work out of their own violation 7 hours

Section 35, Section 36

(SI mana karta hai kama karne se toh prison offence ke ambit mein nahi lekar aayenge not under section 44) prison
sentence can only be given to RI prisoner and not to SI prisoner section 36.

Lot of opaqueness in the system.

Kartik Paul v State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sentence imposed under section 428 of Crpc

Section 54 and 55 of the West Bengal Correctional Administration Services Act, 1992

WAGES OF PRISON INMATES

As per the NCRB data among all the States and Union Territories, Puducherry has provided highest

wages of 180, 160 and 150per day to skilled convicts, semi-skilled convicts and unskilled convicts

respectively during 2015 and was followed by Delhi Tihar. In this amount there remained a deduction of Victim’s
compensation fund (25%) and Prisoner’s welfare fund(25%).Thus approximately 80 – 90 rupees was paid to the
inmates, subject to the availability of work and budget with the prison. Since there is lack of both adequate budget
and work, hence inmates are mostly working without payment or very low wages in other prisons. In some prisons
there are further deductions also on their expanses made by Prison upon inmates. Thus meager amount is credited
into their account.

ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN THE PRESENT SCENARIO

Minimum Wages Act 1948 is not applicable and Prisoner’s Act 1894 has no such provision for providing uniform
wages to the inmates. People mindset to keep prisoners away from their sight leads to lack of awareness. Prison is in
State List of the constitution, thus there is a lack of Budget and uniformity rules. Capacity building and
employability: Resource crunch and leadership’s non-priority are main factors in transforming inmates. Prison Act
1894 needs an amendment as per modern requirements. The NCRB data suggest that among all three wings of
prison managements (administration, correctional and Medical) it has been found that correctional staff is very less,
mostly without training. Thus lack of dedicated staff is main hindrance in reformation. These staff can add value in
the inmates earning. Better utilization of welfare fund and inmate’s earning can be ensured if probation officer visits
houses of the inmates and makes proper recommendations. Majority of the prisons are not having this cadre. In few
States this cadre is with social welfare department. Non-utilization of corporate social responsibility fund. It needs a
presentation and persuasion before corporate to maintain peaceful society. About 2 lakhs able work force remained
noncontributory in Nation’s growth. Non-function of Prison courts against right of speedy trial. Few inmates do not
know language and getting difficult to adjust culturally and food habits. Prison goals can be achieved once minimum
comfort level for the inmate is provided. There is a lack of awareness about technology to provide national data base
of inmates for inviting entrepreneurs. Few non statutory services inside prisons can be privatized like providing jobs,
skill developments, placements, open jail forms etc.

Minimum wages Act not applicable

Section 3(a) of the M W Act 1948 defines ‘wages’ means all remuneration, capable of being expressed in terms of
money, which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a
person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes house rent
allowance, but does not include the value of any house accommodation, supply of light, water, medical attendance,
any other amenity or any service excluded by general or special order of the appropriate Government; any
contribution paid by the employer to any Pension Fund or Provident Fund or under any scheme of social insurance;
any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession; any sum paid to the person employed to defray
special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment; any gratuity payable on discharge. The M W Act
1948 has been accepted and the courts have directed to follow Wages Act subject to reasonable deductions when
prisoner takes work of a corporate through Prison, he should not be paid below Wage Act.

Nitin Verma v Government of NCT Delhi and Anr (2019)

25% deduction of wages for victims has been suspended.

Provision of revised wages has also been suggested by the courts.

357 crpc not effective: victim compensation, constructive thinking for state for diverting some income to be paid to
the deserving victim.

State should bring legislation on this.

POA: victim se related: payment to victim to the fine section 5.

Tamilnadu: substantial reduction idea of 25% for victim.

Court: 50% done away with.

The section was unconstitutional.

After 1999 prison rules changes and prison authorities changed present ruke to include 25% for victim.
1998 section 357 crpc victim compensation was not effected.

2009 obliges every state for victim compensation: how many states have implemented it? Research topic

Every state included this 25% for including victim compensation

While different states Delhi prisoner rule, international bridges for justice, she challenged 25% rule.

Study done on how 25% rule is not effective.

2018 Delhi prison rules (amendment)

Challenge to 25% rule

V. Prison Offences
Varinder Singh v State of Punjab and Anr.

Prison act 1894: Section 45: Prison offence when committed by the prisoner.

Section 42: Communication contrary to rules and section 59: Is prohibited.

Ramamurthy v State of Karnataka ( Introduction of Open prisons at least in District Headquarters of the
country should be considered.)

In Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka (1997) case, the Supreme Court identified nine issues concerning prisons,
such as overcrowding, trials being delayed, the torture and ill-treatment of prisoners, neglect of health and hygiene,
insubstantial food and inadequate clothing.

Open Prison

https://indianexpress.com/article/what-is/what-is-an-open-prison-4980425/ (This article is really helpful for

understanding the concept of open prison)

Prison Manual 2016

It aims at bringing in basic uniformity in laws, rules and regulations governing the administration of prisons and the
management of prisoners all over the country.

Constitution of under-trial review committee and provisions to ensure legal services for under-trial prisoners who
have undergone half of the maximum sentence for that offence.

Comprehensive health screening for women prisoners, including tests to determine presence of sexually transmitted
or blood-borne diseases, mental health concerns, existence of drug dependency, etc. Legal literacy classes in prisons.

Enabling proper counselling and treatment for women suffering from psychological disorders.

Provision of legal aid to prisoners sentenced to death at all stages, even after rejection of mercy petitions.
 VI. Ranbir Singh Sehgal v state of Punjab: solidarity confinement:
Three types of punishment

1. Solitary: Completely secluding prisoners from other prisoners, can be imposed by court only on view of
dangerous potentialities. For three months(Section 73 and 74 of IPC cannot extend 14 days at a time)
Section 29 of the Prison Act: Mandatory visit by medical officer
2. Cellular: Imposed by superintendent of Jail: Confinement with or without labour secludes prisoner from
communication but not out if sight of other prisoners.
3. Separate
Section 47 prohibits combination of cellular and separate confinement.
Can be kept in solitary confinement for jail offences
So basically in this conditions are mentioned by the court for these types of confinement. And could only
be given when jail offence is committed by the prisoner.

State of Uttarakhand v Mehtab (https://crlreview.in/solitary-confinement/)

Solitary confinement as defined in Kishore Singh Ravinder v. State of Rajasthan is the confinement in which there
is complete isolation of prisoners from other co-prisoners and segregation from the outside world of fellow
prisoners. Locking up persons in jail as such involves disconnecting from their family and friends curtailing free
movement in society. In the case of solitary confinement, this is made harsher as there is complete isolation of a
prisoner from all human contact and confinement in a cell arranged such that, he has no direct interaction with or
sight of any human being and no employment or instruction. Therefore, this has a more damaging impact on the
individual.

Section 74 says, “In executing a sentence of solitary confinement, such confinement shall in no case exceed fourteen
days at a time, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods; and
when the imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months, the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in
any one month of the whole imprisonment awarded, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of
not less duration than such periods.”

Section 74 puts forth certain limitations upon the punishment of solitary confinement. The severity and harshness of
solitary confinement has compelled the framers of the Indian Penal Code to specify that in no case can the prisoner
be kept for more than 14 days at a time and it must be imposed intervals. The Courts are authorized, in cases where
imprisonment awarded exceeds three months, solitary confinement shall not exceed 7 days in a month. Further
solitary confinement can only be ordered for the offences under the IPC only and cannot be awarded unless where
the punishment is rigorous imprisonment. It is not part of a substantive offence i.e it cannot be awarded as part of
imprisonment in default of fine. This section has been inserted considering the barbaric, inhumane and torturous
nature of solitary confinement and which would otherwise lead to violation of basic human rights of prisoners.

Solitary Confinement under Prisons Act, 1894 Section 29 says, “No cell shall be used for solitary confinement
unless it is furnished with the means of enabling the prisoner to communicate at any time with an officer of the
prison, and every prisoner so confined in a cell for more than twenty-four hours, whether as a punishment or
otherwise, shall be visited at least once a day by the Medical Officer or Medical Subordinate.

Section 29 which is penal in character, insist that solitary confinement must be imposed only in accordance with the
fair procedure, in the absence of which the confinement becomes violative of Art.21.[3]

Relevant Case Laws

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration[4], a prisoner who was under death sentence, through a letter alleged that the
jail warden had pierced a baton into the anus of co-prisoner who is under life sentence in the same jail for a reason to
extract money. The SC held that no solitary confinement or any other type of hard labor shall be imposed without
judicial appraisal of the Sessions Judge.

In Shatrughan Chauhan v. UOI[5] , the Supreme Court observed that “despite enduring pronouncement on judicial
side, the actual implementation of Section 29 of the Prisons Act, is far from reality” and “urged the jail authorities to
comprehend and implement the actual intent of the verdict in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration

In a landmark judgment , the Uttarakhand High Court , abolished the practice of keeping death row convicts in
isolation immediately after their sentencing. The division bench of Justices Rajiv Sharma and Alok Singh noted that
solitary confinement was an “anarchic and cruel practice which amounts to torture and can cause immense pain,
agony and anxiety” to inmates. It added: “The convict shall not be segregated till the sentence of death has become
final, conclusive and indefeasible which cannot be annulled or voided by any judicial or constitutional procedure

Solitary confinement has been internationally recognized as a form of torture and it can lead to more problems rather
than remedies. It affects the physical and mental well-being of the individual to a great extent as it creates immense
agony pain and agony. Even advocates over the world are in favor of its abolition stating the reason that it is
inhuman and the most torturous punishment as it violates basic human rights. In India. the State of Uttarakhand has
taken the first initiative in abolishing this appalling practice.

VII. Satish Sabbe v State of UttarPradesh (Pre-mature release)

The Constitution of India through Articles 72 and 161, embody these reformative principles by allowing the
President of India and the Governor of a State to suspend, remit or commute sentences of convicts.

Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) streamlines such powers by laying down procedure
and preconditions for release. The only embargo under Section 433A of CrPC is against the release of persons
sentenced to life imprisonment till they have served at least fourteen years of their actual sentence.

The UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 also lays down the principles upon which such decisions to
release on probation are required to be taken. Its Section 2 says that:

“2. Power of Government to release by licence on conditions imposed by them – Notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), where a person is confined in
prison under a sentence of imprisonment and it appears to the State Government from his antecedents and his
conduct in the prison that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life, if he is released from
prison, the State Government may by licence permit him to be released on condition that he be placed under the
supervision or authority of a Government Officer or of a person professing the same religion as the prisoner, or such
secular institution or such society belonging to the same religion as the prisoner as may be recognized by the State
Government for this purpose, provided such other person, institution or society is willing to take charge of him.”

So court observed in this case that considering how the petitioners have served nearly two decades of
incarceration and have thus suffered the consequences of their actions; a balance between individual
and societal welfare can be struck by granting the petitioners conditional premature release, subject to their
continuing good conduct. This would both ensure that liberty of the petitioners is not curtailed, nor that there is
any increased threat to society. Suffice to say that this order is not irreversible and can always be recalled in the
event of any future misconduct or breach by the petitioners