TEN THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT INDIAN PRISONS

An analysis of National Crime Records Bureau’s

PRISON STATISTICS INDIA 2019

18.8 lakh prisoners There were 19,913 69.05% of prisoners

There were 4.78 lakh 116 prisoners died by
were admitted to women prisoners, of were awaiting trial in
prisoners and the suicide; 7,394
prisons, of which 4.3% which 1,543 women India, 1/4th of which
overcrowding rate prisoners suffered
were women were with 1,779 have already spent
was 18.5%. from mental illness.
children more than 1 year.

A total of 1,775 Ratio of prisoners per

There were 5,608 More than 30% of
prisoners died in prison staff was 7:1, On an average,
foreign national staff positions were prisoners per
prison, out of which vacant. Only 12.8% of prisons spent Rs. 118
prisoners; 832 were correctional staff was
1,544 deaths were the total prison staff per prisoner every
women. 628:1 and prisoners per
due to ‘illness’ & were women. day.
medical staff was 243:1
‘ageing’
I. PRISON POPULATION AND OCCUPANCY
Findings – PSI 2019
 In 2019, the overall national prison occupancy rate at 118.5% was highest in the last five years.
 Among the types of prisons, District Prisons and Central Prisons were overcrowded with an occupancy rate of 129.7% and 123.9%
respectively.
 Among the States/UTs, Delhi has the highest prison overcrowding with an occupancy rate of 174.9%.
 Eight States/UTs, namely Delhi (174.9%), Uttar Pradesh (167.9%), Uttarakhand (159%), Meghalaya (157.4%), Madhya Pradesh (155.3%),
Sikkim (153.8%), Maharashtra (152.7%) and Chhattisgarh (150.1%) have an occupancy rate of above 150%.
 In last the five years, the total prison population has increased by 14.1% against an increase of 10.1% in the prison capacity. In these
years, the undertrial prisoners’ population increased by 17.2%.
 At the end of 2019, there were 4,78,600 prisoners in 1350 prisons of the country out of which 3,30,487 were undertrial prisoners.

Change in Prison Population, Prison Capacity, Undertrial Prisoners' Population and Prison
Overcrowding from 2015 to 2019

478600
5,00,000 466084
450696
419623 433003
Number of Prisoners

4,00,000
403739
Prison Population
391574 396223
380876
366781
3,00,000
308718 323537 330487
282076 293058
Capacity
2,00,000

1,00,000
Undertrial Population

0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
 Jammu & Kashmir, 57.8%
State/UT wise percentage change in prison population from 2015 to 2019

Arunachal Pradesh, 34.2%

Himachal Pradesh, 19.9%

Chandigarh, 43.0%
Sikkim, 59.4%
Puducherry, 37.7%

Madhya Pradesh, 16.0%

Uttarakhand, 29.5%
Maharashtra, 24.1%

Mizoram, 36.5%
Uttar Pradesh, 14.1%
Manipur, 34.6%

Bihar, 40.1%

Gujarat, 28.1%
West Bengal, 7.3%

Chhattisgarh, 2.5%
Meghalaya, 8.5%
80.0%

Haryana, 11.8%

Tamil Nadu, 4.1%

Telangana, 8.3%
Delhi, 23.6%

Karnataka, 7.7%

Jharkhand, 5.9%
Rajasthan, 7.5%
Goa, 22.5%
Odisha, 10.0%

Tripura, 6.2%
60.0%

Punjab, 2.2%

Kerala, 2.4%
Assam, 1.4%
40.0%
20.0%

D & N Haveli + D & D, -49.1%

0.0%
Lakshadweep, -83.3%

Andhra Pradesh, -4.0%

-20.0%

Nagaland, -9.0%

A.& N.Islands, -51.1%

-40.0%
-60.0%
-80.0%
-100.0%

CHRI’s Comments
The world prison population increased by 3.7% from 2015 to 2018 (Data of world’s prison population of 2019 is not available). From 2015
to 2018, 3,86,485 prisoners were added to the world prison population out of which 46,461 (12%) were added in India. In terms of
incarceration rates, at 35 prisoners per one lakh population, India stands at 211 position out of 223 countries. This shows that though
India holds a major share in the world prison population, its incarceration rate is among the lowest in the world.
In the last five years, Andhra Pradesh and Nagaland are only two states that reduced their prison population 1. 13 States and UTs
increased their prison population by more than 20% from 2015 to 2019. Highest increase in prison population was recorded in Sikkim
(59.4%) and Jammu Kashmir (57.6%).
The national overall overcrowding of 18.5% is an underestimation of the chronic overcrowding in Indian prisons as individual prisons
even in States/UTs which have an overall occupancy below the total capacity can be extremely high. One fourth of the States/UTs
have an acute occupancy rate of more than 150% and more than half of the States/UTs have occupancy above capacity. A trend
analysis of occupancy rates of District Prisons and Central Prisons shows that while the occupancy in District Prisons has lowered slightly
from 131.1% in 2015 to 129.7% in 2019, it is consistently increasing in Central Prisons from 116.4% in 2015 to 123.9% in 2019. The graph
shows that the prison system, by merely increasing the prison capacity, is failing to address the issue of overcrowding.

1
Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu and Lakshadweep are not included in the population analysis as their pop ulation is comparatively very small and
dynamic.
II. PROPORTION OF UNDERTRIAL PRISONERS
Findings – PSI 2019
 In 2019, 69.1% of prison population comprised undertrial prisoners.
 In the last five years, the undertrial prison population increased by 17.16% against an increase of 7.4% in convict prison population.
 *Manipur had the worst undertrial prisoners to prison population ratio (UTP ratio) of 86.5%, followed by Meghalaya (84.2), Jammu &
Kashmir (83.4%) and Delhi (82%).2
 *Lowest UTP ratio was in Arunachal Pradesh at 42.9% followed by Tripura (51.5%), Madhya Pradesh (54.2%) and Chhattisgarh (54.3%).
 *In the last five years, Mizoram with an increase of 15.7 percentage points tops the list of States/UTs in worsening UT ratio followed by
Punjab (increase of 10.8 percentage points), Chandigarh (increase of 9.6 percentage points) and Telangana (increase of 9.5
percentage points).
 *In the last five years, Arunachal Pradesh tops the list in improving UTP ratio by reducing it by 31 percentage points followed by
Nagaland (reduced by 9.3 points), Jharkhand (reduced by 8.7 points) and Kerala (reduced by 4.6 points).
 From 2015 to 2019, only 9 States have reduced their UTP ratio.

Change in Undertrial and Convict Prison Population from 2015 to 2019

350000
Number of Prisoners

300000 -0.3% 330487

323537
293058 308718
250000 282879 282076

200000
Undertrial Prisoners
2.5% 0.2% 3.3 %
150000 2% 1.1%
144125 Convict Prisoners
100000 131517 134168 135683 139149 139488

50000
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2
* This analysis does not include Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Pondicherry, Lakshadweep, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu because of their dynamic and comparatively very
small prison population.
 CHRI’s Comments
Two third of total prisoners in India are imprisoned without conviction. India stands at 16th position out of 217 countries in terms of
proportion of undertrial prisoners. In the last five years, only in 2019 the growth of convict prison population was more than undertrial
prison population. India is at the edge of crossing the 70% UTP ratio3 mark which was last recorded in 2001 (70.4%). The slight decrease
in rate of undertrial prison population recorded in 2019 may not continue as the graph shows. The rare decrease in UTP population as
seen in 2015 failed to put brakes on the expanding UTP ratio as the later years’ data shows.
Overall, from 2015 to 2019, the undertrial prison population increased by 17.2% against an increase of mere 7.4% in the convict
population. This shows that the rate of increase in number of people getting imprisoned is more than double the rate of increase in
number of people getting convicted. There are more than 2 undertrial prisoners for per convict in prisons.
In 2015, there were three States/UTs (Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Mizoram, Chandigarh and Tripura) with an UTP ratio below 50%. In
2019, Arunachal Pradesh was the only state with a UTP ratio below 50%. High undertrial prison population increases the stress on already
overburdened prison resources. It also distracts the focus of prison administration from correctional activities and rehabilitation of
convicts.

III. PERIOD OF CONFINEMENT OF UNDERTRIAL PRISONERS

Findings – PSI 2019
 74% of the undertrial prisoners were confined for a period of up to 1 year.
 13.4% of the undertrial prisoners were confined for a period ranging between 1 to 2 years.
 6.8% of the undertrial prisoners were confined for a period ranging between 2 to 3 years.
 2.1% of the undertrial prisoners were confined for a period of more than 3 years.
 In the last 10 years, share of undertrial prisoners confined for less than one year has decreased by 4 percentage points.
 In the last 10 years, highest increase by 1.4% is of the undertrial prisoners who have spent between 3 to 5 years in prison.
 Highest share of undertrial prisoners (6.5%) who have spent more than 5 years is in Jammu and Kashmir.

3
UTP ratio is the proportion of undertrial prisoners out of total prison population.
 Change in Share of Undertrial Prisoners by Period of Confinement
20 90

18 78
74.9 75.4 75 74.7 80

Number of Years (upto 1 year)

74
16
13.4 13.4 70
14
Number of Years

12.5 12.4 12.3 12.4

12
60
10
6.8 6.9 6.9 6.8 50
8 6.3
5.8
6 4.3 4.4 4.3 40
4.1 4
4 2.9
1.3 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.5 30
2 0.7

0 20
2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

1-2 years 2-3 years 3-5 years Above 5 years Upto 1 year

CHRI’s Comments
The graph shows that the share of Undertrial Prisoners who have spent less than one year is decreasing from last 10 years consistently.
Resultantly, the share of prisoners who have spent more than a year behind bar without conviction is increasing steadily. Though, the
data on share of prisoners by period of confinement shows that the increase in share of prisoners spending longer is slight but this must
be seen in the light of a much higher rate of increase of undertrial population each year. The slight increase in percentage share of
prisoners spending longer seems to be under represented. This maybe because a much higher number of prisoners are added to the
population who have spent less than a year, each year.
In short, the five and ten year trend shows that more and more prisoners are spending longer durations behind bars each year without
a conviction. Long duration of pre-trial detention is a bolt on the criminal justice system as it shows its inability to provide a meaningful
trial to the accused as well as the victim. If the criminal trials were to be capped at a maximum duration of 1 year, almost 26% of the
undertrial prison population would be reduced.
These increasing numbers also cast doubt upon the functioning of the Under-trial Review Committees4. In 2019, only 1535 undertrial
prisoners were found to be eligible for release under section 436 A of CrPC in 13 States/UTs (rest showed nil eligible) out of which 635

4
An Undertrial Review Committee (UTRC) is a district level oversight mechanism headed by the senior most judicial officer of the district and comprises members from district
administration, District Legal Services Authority , police and prison department, that primarily focuses on addressing overcrowding in the prisons.
 (41.3%) undertrial prisoners were released. It must be noted that section 436A is only one of 14 categories of prisoners who may be
recommended for release by the Undertrial Review Committee. CHRI believes that an effective implementation of the NALSA’s SOP
on UTRCs shall ensure that unnecessary and prolonged detention is kept under check.

IV. WOMEN AND PRISONS – INMATES & STAFF

Findings – PSI 2019
Women Prisoners
 There were 19,913 women prisoners comprising 4.2% of the total prison population.
 Only 15 States/UT have women prisons, highest seven are in Rajasthan.
 Of the 19, 913 only 3652 (18 %) women prisoners were confined women prisons, rest were in women enclosures in other prisons
 Share of women prisoners living in women prisons has increased marginally from 16.7% in 2015 to 18.3% in 2019.
 14% of the Foreign National Prisoners (FNPs) were women in 2019.
 In the last five years, women prisoners’ population has increased by 11.7%.
 In 2019, there were 1543 women prisoners with 1779 children accompanying them. Maximum number of 430 women prisoners with
490 children were in Uttar Pradesh.
 West Bengal with one women prison has worst occupancy ratio in women prisons at 142%, followed by Uttar Pradesh with one prison
at 138.5% and Bihar with two prisons at 112.5%.
 Overall women prisoners’ occupancy is worst in Uttarakhand at 170.1% followed by Uttar Pradesh at 127.3%, Chhattisgarh at 136.1%
and Madhya Pradesh at 124%.
 Women UTP Ratio deteriorated from 66.8% in 2015 to 68% in 2019.

Women Staff
 There are 7794 women staff in prisons which is 12.8% of the total prison staff.
 Share of women in prison staff has marginally increased from 8.3% in 2015 to 12.8% in 2019.
 Highest share of women in prison staff is in Karnataka at 26.2% followed by Mizoram at 25.6% and Nagaland at 23.3%.
 Lowest share of women in prison staff among the states is in Goa at 1.6% followed by Uttarakhand at 3.3% and Uttar Pradesh at 6%.
 In 16 States and UTs, women form less than 10% of the total prison staff.
  In the last five years, Bihar tops the list in increasing the share of women staff by 13.8 percentage points (5.2% in 2015 to 19% in 2019),
followed by Mizoram with an increase of 11.3 percentage points and Madhya Pradesh with an increase of 10.3 percentage points.
 In the last five years, Uttarakhand saw a maximum fall in share of women in prison staff by 2.5 percentage points (5.8% in 2015 to 3.3%
in 2019), followed by Delhi with a fall of 2.1 percentage points and Manipur with a fall of 1 percentage point.

Share of women in prison staff

Women prisoners in women prisons and other
prisons
7794, 13%

3652, 18%

16261, 82%

52993, 87%

In women prisons In other prisons Women Staff Men Staff

CHRI’s Comments
The overall occupancy data shows that there is no overcrowding of women prisoners in India. However, a closer look into the state
level and prison level data reveals the extreme cases of overcrowding of women prisoners. State wise women prisoners’ occupancy
data shows that there is overcrowding in various States/UTs in women prisons as well as in ‘women enclosures’ in other prisons. In an
extreme case, the PSI data shows that one special prison for women in Maharashtra had an occupancy of 500% - five women inmates
living in a space for one. Further, highest women prisoners’ occupancy in different types of prisons is at 233.3% in Sub-Jails of Himachal
Pradesh, 162.7% in District Jails of Uttarakhand and 236.6% in Central Jails of Uttar Pradesh.
Though, the share of women prisoners living in women prisons out of total women prisoners in India has increased slightly in last five
years, it still remains below 20%. Rest of the women prisoners are housed in ‘women enclosures’ in other prisons. Women prisoners living
in these enclosures often do not have access to facilities at par with the male prisoners. Especially their access to recreational spaces
and activities is barred, forcing them to live in a prison inside a prison. As only 15 States and UTs have women prisons, CHRI urges all
States and UTs to create separate correctional facilities for women in each district or zone depending on the women prisoners’
population.
 In 2019 women formed a mere 12.8% of the total prison staff despite an increase in their share in last five years. Further the State/UT
wise data shows that in the State with the highest share of women in prison staff, the ratio is just half their share in general population.
Several States/UTs do not even have 1 woman out of 10 prison staff. In 2019 six States/UTs namely Assam, Andaman & Nicobar Islands,
Manipur, Daman and Diu, Delhi and Uttarakhand recorded a fall in share of women in prison staff. These figures reveal the gender
exclusionary nature of prison services. The rate of increase in the share of women in prison staff is too slow to reach an equitable level
in near future.

V. EDUCATION, CASTE AND RELIGION PROFILE OF PRISONERS

Findings – PSI 2019
Education Profile
 Almost 1 out of 3 prisoners in India is illiterate.
 41.6% have not completed Class X.
 21.5% have passed Class X but are not undergraduates.
 Only 6.3% were graduate, 1.2% had a technical or diploma degree and 1.7% were post graduates.

Religion Profile
 Hindus comprised 68.3% of the total prison population against their share of 79.8% in the general population.
 Muslims comprised 18.3% of the total prison population against their share of 14.2% in the general population.
 Christians comprised 2.9% of the total prison population against their share of 2.3% in the general population.
 Sikhs comprised 3.8% of the total prison population against their share of 1.7% in the general population.
 Persons belonging to ‘other’ religions formed 1% of the total prison population.
 In the last five years, highest increase in the share of any religion among the categories of prisoners was the increase of Muslims in
detenue prison population by 12.1 percentage points. A corresponding decrease was in the share of Hindus in the detenue prison
population by 12.7 percentage points.
 The highest share of undertrial prisoners to total prison population of a particular religion was of Muslims at 70.8%.
Caste Profile
 21.2% belonged to Scheduled Caste against their share of 20% in the general population.
 11.4% belonged to Scheduled Tribes against their share of 9% in the general population.
 34.5% belonged to Other Backward Castes (OBC) against their share of 41% in the general population.
 27.1% belonged to other castes against their share of 30% in the general population.
 In the last five years, highest increase in the share of any caste in prisons was seen in the OBC share from 31.4% in 2015 to 34.5% in
2019.
 In the last five years, highest decrease in the share of any caste in prisons was seen in the share of ‘others’ from 34.3% in 2015 to 27.1%
in 2019.
 The highest share of Undertrial prisoners to total prison population of a particular caste was of OBCs at 68.5%.

Caste Distribution in Prisons (percentage) Religion Distribution in Prisons (percentage)

79.8
50 41 80 68.3
34.5
40 30 27.1 60
30 20 21.2
40
20 9 11.4 14.218.3
20
10 2.3 2.9 1.7 3.8 1.9 1
0 0
SC ST OBC Others Hindu Muslims Christian Sikhs Others

Share in General Population Share in Prison Population Share in General Population Share in Prison Population

Education Profile of Prisoners (percentage)

27.7

Illiterate
1.7
Below Class X
1.2
Class X but not Graduate
Graduate
6.3 Holding Tech. Degree/Diploma
41.6 Post Graduate
21.5
 CHRI’s Comments
1 out of 3 prisoners in India cannot read or write and 7 out of 10 have not attained metric education. This shows that the majority of
the prisoners not only come from socially vulnerable backgrounds but also lack the ability to either read their case document or
understand them. This should be a major concern for the criminal justice system as it is indispensable for the accused or convict to
understand the legal process and documents to enable their participation in the justice process. It also calls for focused learning
programmes for less educated and illiterate prisoners to ensure that they have access to information. The Legal Aid Functionaries
must run programmes to ensure that lack of education does not hamper prisoner’s access to their rights.

Religion and caste data of prisoners show that the marginalised communities – Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes – are overrepresented in prisons. A closer look at the data also reveals that the Muslims are the only community
which has a higher share in the total undertrial population than its share in the total convict population. Muslims form 18.7% of the
total undertrial prison population whereas they form only 16.6% of the total convict population. No other caste or religion has a higher
share in total Undertrial population than their share in the Convict population. Further, the steep increase in the share of Muslims in
the detenue population also calls for deeper examination of the reasons. Over-representation of marginalised community in prisons
hints towards an irrefutable bias in the criminal justice system.

VI. PRISON STAFF

Findings – PSI 2019
 In 2019, there were 60,787 actual staff in prisons against the sanctioned strength of 87,599. The average staff vacancy in Indian prisons
has slightly reduced from 33.9% in 2015 to 30.6% in 2019.
 Nagaland (0.5%), Arunachal Pradesh (7%) and Manipur (11.3%) are the top three states to have lowest staff vacancy in their prisons.
 Jharkhand (63.2%), Chandigarh (52.5%) and Sikkim (50.5%) have highest staff vacancy in their prisons.
 From 2015 to 2019, actual prison staff strength has increased by 7,778 against an increase of 7,363 in sanctioned strength.
 In the last five years, Uttarakhand tops the list in reducing staff vacancy by 26.4 percentage points from 66.3% in 2015 to 39.9% in
2019, followed by Bihar by 22.1 percentage points from 66.2% in 2015 to 44.1% in 2019 and Manipur from 32.8% in 2015 to 11.3% in
2019.
  In terms of worsening staff vacancy, Sikkim tops the list by increasing its staff vacancy from 14.3% in 2015 to 50.5% in 2019, followed
by Chandigarh from 17.5% in 2015 to 52.5% in 2019 and Kerala from 3.6% in 2015 to 26.2% in 2019.
 18 states and UTs have no sanctioned probation or welfare officers. 23 states and UTs have no sanctioned psychologists/psychiatrists.
19 states and UTs have no sanctioned social workers.
 9 States and UTs have no sanctioned correctional staff while 14 states and UTs had not appointed any correctional staff at the end of
2019.
 In the last five years, the inmate to staff ratio has improved slightly from 8:1 in 2015 to 7:1 in 2019.
 The ratio of inmate to correctional staff at 756:1 in 2019 has deteriorated from 703:1 in 2015.
 The ratio of inmate to medical staff at 243:1 in 2019 has also deteriorated from 225:1 in 2015.

Percentage Share of Different Types of Staff Percentage Share of Correctional Staff (Actual)
(Actual)
Executive Staff (Officers)
296, 39%
8% Executive Staff (Jail Cadre 436, 57%
Staff) Probation/Welfare Officers
5% Correctional Staff
Psychologist/ Psychiatrist
76% Medical Staff
7% Social Worker/ Others
3% Ministerial Staff
1% 29, 4%

CHRI’s Comments
It comes across that 30% staff vacancy is the acceptable norm, and prisons have not been able to reach below that mark. High staff
vacancy implies overburdening of prison staff which not only indicates security risk, while also having far reaching implications on
prison services. An overburdened staff cannot be expected to adhere to ideal statutory standards of administering prisons.

The 7:1 inmate to staff ratio is not truly reflective of the actual number of staff available to tend to the prisoners. The number of actual
staff includes the staff that is posted at the headquarters, trainings institutes as well as those who are suspended or on leave or
deputation etc. Further, the distribution of the cadres in actual prison staff further reveal an extremely disproportionate inmate to staff
ratio in correctional and medical category. The fact that the correctional staff is completely absent in 14 states lays bare the
‘correctional’ natures of Indian prisons.
 The Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD), National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and other bodies as
stakeholders in prison system of the country must examine what are implications of having just one medical officer for 243 inmates or
one correctional staff for 756 inmates on rights of prisoners and objectives of incarceration.

In 2019, 20.6% of total prison staff received trainings which include refresher / specialised / re-orientation courses. It cannot be
estimated from the PSI data whether the staff gets trainings on rotational basis or not.

VII. PRISON POPULATION OFFENCE WISE

Findings – PSI 2019
 80.5% prisoners (3,85,283) were incarcerated for offences under Indian Penal Code (IPC), 67.2% of these were undertrials.
 18.6% prisoners (88,913) were incarcerated for offences under Special and Local Laws (SLL), 80.4% of these were undertrials.
 Among prisoners incarcerated under IPC offences, highest 52% were incarcerated for offences against human body excluding
offences against women, 23% were incarcerated for IPC offences against property and 18.6% were incarcerated for IPC offences
affecting human body against women.
 Among prisoners incarcerated under SLL offences, highest 58% were incarcerated for SLL offences related to Liquor & Drugs, 15.3%
were incarcerated for SLL offences related to Arms/Explosive related acts and 4.6% were incarcerated for SLL offences under
foreigner & passport related acts.
 Within each category of offence, the highest share of undertrial prisoners (86.2%) was among the prisoners incarcerated for ‘IPC
offences against public tranquillity’ whereas the lowest share of undertrial prisoners (56.3%) was for IPC offences against human body
excluding offences against women.
 Offence wise distribution of Undertrial and Convict Prisoners
100%
90% 1342 341 13993 283 444 628 1993 9618 203 495
19678 3361 85.9% 1414 84.0% 418 2187
80% 87402 79.8% 86.2% 84.2% 85.5% 83.4% 85.4% 81.4%
85.2% 75.1%
70% 72.6%
69.2% 68.3%
60% 65.2%
56.3%
50%
40% 5303 2135 74713 1624 2627 3153 11625 41985 1238 2601
52141 10163 937 4702
30% 2645
112804
20%
10%
0%

Documents &…
IPC Other Crimes against

SLL Crimes related to Misc. Acts

SLL Crimes related to Railways
IPC Offences Against Property

SLL Crimes related to Foreigner

Other SLL Crimes

Body excluding Offences against

Other IPC Crimes

SLL Crimes against Women

Arms/Explosive realted acts

SLL Crimes related to Liquor &

IPC Offences against Women

SLL Crimes related to Gambling

against PublicTranquility

SLL Crimes against SC/ST

IPC Offences
IPC Offences affecting Human

relating to

SLL Crimes related to

affecting Human Body

& Passport related Acts

IPC Offences
Women

persons
Women

Drugs

Act
Undertrial Prisoners Convict Prisoners UTP Ratio Average UTP Ratio

CHRI’s Comments
IPC offences against human body excluding the offences against women accounts for highest share of prisoners (41.8%). This
category of offence also accounts for highest share of convict prisoners (60.8%) and undertrial prisoners (34%) out of total convict
and undertrial prisoners’ population respectively. Second highest share of prisoners (18.5%) are incarcerated for IPC offences against
property followed by 10.8% for SLL offences related to liquor and drugs.

Among the convict prisoners, ‘IPC offences against women affecting human body’ account for second highest share of 13.7%
followed by ‘IPC offences against property’ which account for 9.7% of the total convict population. Among the undertrial prisoners,
‘IPC offences against property’ account for 23% followed by ‘IPC offences against women affecting human body’ which account
for 16%.

This shows that ‘IPC offences against property’ form much larger share (23%) in undertrial population than in convict population
(9.7%). A similar observation can be made for ‘SLL offences related to liquor and drugs’ which form 13% of undertrial population
 against 6.7% of convict population. These observations are crucial to understand what categories of offences account for higher
proportions of overall prison population, undertrial population and convict population.

The graph shows that apart from the prisoners incarcerated for ‘IPC offences affecting Human Body excluding offences against
women’ and ‘SLL crimes related to Foreigners & Passport related Acts’ all other categories of offences had higher share of undertrial
prisoners than the overall average of 69.1%. The average is maintained because of high percentage of population (41.8%)
incarcerated for offences falling under the said category. This reveals the true extent of high undertrial population in Indian prisons
as its implications are beyond increased burden on prison resources. A person is innocent until proven guilty. High percentage of
prisoners incarcerated without conviction shows the dilution of this universal tenet of criminal justice system and human rights.

CHRI urges stakeholders to examine the reasons behind such extremely disproportionate share of persons yet to be convicted or
acquitted behind bars for crimes related to Special and Local Laws.

VIII. PRISON INSPECTIONS

Findings – PSI 2019
 There were a total of 51,255 prison inspections in the year 2019. On an average, there were 3 inspections per prison per month.
 47.8% of the inspections were Medical, 12.3% were Executive, 31.6% were Judicial and 8.3% were in the ‘others’ category.
 Chandigarh with one prison has the highest (37) inspections per prison per month. It is followed by Haryana with 9 and Tripura with 8
inspections per prison per month, respectively.
 Manipur, Lakshadweep and Puducherry reported less than 1 prison inspection per prison per month.
 In 2019, with a total of 51,255 judicial inspections in 1350 prisons, on an average there were 2 medical inspections in 3 months, not
even 1 Executive and ‘other’ inspection and just 1 Judicial inspection per prison per month.

Distribution of Types of Prison Inspections in

2019
4236, 8%
24524, 48%

16178, 32% Medical

Executive
Judicial
Others

6317, 12%
 CHRI’s Comments
Prisons require monitoring by external and internal visitors to observe, document and address the various issues faced by the prisons
and prisoners, both. Visits by external and internal visitors to prisons aid in prison administration and safeguard rights of prisoners. Prison
visitors include magistrates and judges, human rights commissions, officers from public works, medical and health, social wel fare
departments and respected people drawn from local society. They monitor and report prison infrastructure, prison records, prisoners’
living conditions, etc. and listen to grievances of the prisoners, making the prisons transparent and accountable to the society. There
is also a Board of Visitors which comprises official as well as non-official visitors who are required to meet regularly to discuss issues of
concern and recommend solutions.

The PSI data on prison inspections shows that prisons are not adequately monitored and assisted by visitors. On an average, 3 prison
visits per month does not represent the actual rate of prison inspections as almost half of such inspections are medical visits which
are assumed to be confined to medical aspects. Further, CHRI’s studies on prison visiting system over many years have shown that
documentation and follow up on inspections is very poor which renders the inspections largely ineffective.

CHRI’s recent Second National Report on Prison Monitoring in India – Looking into the Haze 2019 has revealed that of the 491 prisons
for which data was analysed only 24% of prisons had a Board of Visitors which held only 20% of its total mandated meetings and only
52% prisons have NOVs appointed who made only 11% of the total mandated visits. CHRI believes that regular inspections by trained
visitors and proper documentation can have a remarkable impact on improving prison conditions and inmates’ lives in prisons.

IX. EXPENDITURE ON PRISONERS

Findings – PSI 2019
 On an average 34.6% of the total budget of prisons in India was spent on prisoners.
 Rs. 118 were spent on per prisoner per day on an average in 2019.
 Rs. 57 per day per prisoner was spent on food.
 Rs. 5 per day per prisoner was spent on medical.
 Rs. 1 per day prisoner was spent on vocational/educational activities, welfare activities and clothing each.
 Distribution of Expenditure on Prisoners

53, 45%
1, 1%
Food
1, 1% Clothing
Medical
5, 4%
Vocational/Educational

1, 1% Welfare Activities
Others

57, 48%

CHRI’s Comments
The per day expenditure on prisoners has increased by Rs. 31.3 from 2015 to 2019. The percentage share of expenditure on inmates
out of the total prison expenditure increased from 28.7% in 2015 to 34.6% in 2019. However, Rs. 118 per prisoner per day seems to be
an exaggerated aggregate because of varying methods of calculating per prisoner expenditure by States/UTs. Haryana claims to
have spent 100% of its total expenditure on prisoners only. It has showed nil expenditure from other sources than sanctioned budget.
A closer look reveals that Haryana spent 88% of the total expenditure ‘on prisoners’ in ‘other activities’.

Further, 92.4% of the expenditure by states/UTs appears to be on food and ‘other’ activities which include transport for hearings,
transfers, hospital etc. and expense on sanitation hygiene etc., and only a meagre amount is left for vocational/educational, welfare
and medical needs of a prisoner. The data on expenditure on prisoners shows that the prison institutions do not have adequate funds
nor do they have staff (as indicated earlier) for imparting correctional services. The extreme variation in the state wise share of
expenditure on prisoners indicates lack of uniformity in resources for sustainable living conditions in prisons, which continues to be an
area of concern.

X. DEATHS IN PRISONS
Findings – PSI 2019
 There were 1775 deaths in Indian prisons in 2019, increased by 12.1% in the last five years.
 1544 deaths were attributed to natural causes, increased by 5.1% in the last five years.
 165 deaths were attributed to unnatural causes, increased by 43.5% in the last five years.
  Causes of 66 deaths, all from Rajasthan, are not yet known.
 Among the prisoners ‘died due to natural causes‘, 78 prisoners died because of ‘ageing’.
 Among the prisoners ‘died due to unnatural causes’, 116 died by suicide, 10 by murder and 20 by ‘accidental deaths’.
 The death rate in Indian prisons in 2019 was 370.8 per lakh prison population.
 Highest death rate of 896.6 per lakh population was recorded in Nagaland, followed by 586.5 in Meghalaya and 579.1 in Goa.
 The rate of suicides in Indian prisons in 2019 was at 24.24 per lakh prison population, more than twice that of 10.4 in the same year in
general population.
 Highest rate of suicides was recorded in Nagaland at 224.2 per lakh population, followed by 97.7 in Meghalaya and 74.4 in
Telangana.5
 14 States/UTs recorded more than twice the rate in general population.

State/UT wise Rate of Suicide in Prisons (per lakh population)

250.00
224.22

200.00

150.00

97.75
100.00
74.44

48.23 53.78 47.64

39.58 45.63 39.7634.28
50.00 27.78 27.20
21.68 22.78 19.7417.77
11.04 16.08 13.34
10.05 6.73 10.87
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00

Prison Suicide Rate Suicide Rate in General Population

5
It must be noted that the prison population of Nagaland (446) and Meghalaya (1023) is comparatively much smaller than other states. Only 1 suicide in each State was recorded.
CHRI’s Comments
In November 2019 the United Nations reported that the death rate in prisons is as much as 50% higher in prisons than the general
population. The data above shows that deaths in prisons are increasing, especially deaths due to ‘unnatural causes’ which have
increased at more than thrice the rate of increase of prison population over the last five years. The overall prison suicide rate in India is
more than double the rate of suicides in the general population. Prisoners live in restricted conditions under the close watch of the
State authorities. The reasons for much higher death and suicide rates in Indian prisons remain officially unexplained. Nevertheless,
some reasons are not far from obvious - poor living conditions and lack of medical facilities. The fact that there is no psychologist or
psychiatrist in prisons of 28 States and UTs speaks for the more than double rate of suicide in Indian prisons.

It remains unclear as to how many deaths that were caused by illness and therefore attributed to ‘natural deaths’, could have been
prevented if the overall medical expenditure per prisoner per day was more than Rs. 5 or if the medical staff to prisoners ratio was
better than 243:1. The prison authorities, state and district health authorities and the National and State Human Rights Commissions
need to work in coordination to make prisons safer and reduce the exponentially high death and suicide rates.

Disclaimer
1. NCRB did not receive data on prisons from West Bengal for 2018 and 2019. Consequently Prison Statistics
India 2019 continued with the prison statistics of the year 2017 for the State to arrive at national
figures/analysis in PSI 2018 and PSI 2019.
2. As per PSI 2017, West Bengal had 45% of the total Foreign National Prisoners (FNP) in the country. In light
of this, it would not be appropriate to show trend analysis of FNP population of 2019 as majority of the
data is not updated for last two years. Readers may see CHRI’s Analysis of PSI 2017 and 2018, here and
here, to see the trend analysis of FNP population. NCRB’s FNP data of other States/UTs may be seen in this
additional table of PSI 2019.