B) MODEL PRISON MANUAL: The MPM 1960 is the directing principle to create a base for the present Indian prison management is governed. On the guidelines of the MPM, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, in 1972, appointed a committee that works on prisons. And made a report and mention the need for a national policy on prisons. State of Karnataka, 1996, the Government of India has constituted All India Model Prison Manual Committee in November, 2000 under the chairmanship of Director General of BPR&D to prepare a Model Prison Manual for the Superintendence and Management of Prisons in India in order to maintain uniformity in the working of prisons throughout the.
- Karnataka Prison Manual 1978 Free
- Karnataka Prison Manual 1978 Full
- Karnataka Prison Manual 1978
- Karnataka Prison Manual 1978 Book
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 1, January-2015 248
Women prisoners of clothing, bedding and children's utensils, etc. Issue Amendment to Rule 86 of the Prison Rules 1974 Manual 1978, the incorporation of the new Prison chapter for the Treatment of Prisoners of children and pregnant and lactating women. Parole security deposit in the amount of reduction from 6000 - 1000.
ISSN 2229-5518
Training Infrastructure and Training Needs of
Prison Personnel
*Sarju Gupta
He The jail administration in India is regulated by the
Indian Prison Act of 1894 and the Jail Manuals of various States. The States have the primary role, responsibility and authority to change the current prison laws, rules and regulations. Day-to-day administration of prisoners rests on principles incorporated in the Prisons Act of 1894, the Prisoners Act of 1900, and the Transfer of Prisoners Act of
1950. An Inspector General of Prisons administers prison
affairs in each state and territory. The Central Government provides assistance to the states to improve security in prisons, for the repair and renovation of old prisons, medical facilities, development of borstal schools, facilities to women offenders, vocational training, modernization of prison industries, training to prison personnel, and for the creation of high security enclosures.
The present prison system frightens the inmate, not refines; it wounds, not heals, it embitters him, not binds him to others; it burns the skin but not awakens the soul. It works on the animal in man but neglects the spirit within. And penal torture hardens the criminal while our objective is to socialize and redeem the individual. Radical humanism and progressive penology must gravitate towards the therapeutic processes, which heal and humanize, restore and socialize, reconcile punishment with dignity of personhood. 1
Though there are various provisions and guidelines for the general well- being and rights of prisoners, however, there is a wide gap between the theory and practice. As Mulla committee has also pointed out that;
'Over-crowded prisons, prolonged detention of undertrial prisoners, unsatisfactory living conditions, lack of treatment programs and allegations of an indifferent and even inhuman approach of prison staff have repeatedly attracted the attention of critics over the years'2.
Restructuring of prisons in India and training infrastructure needs prime attention. The success of any system depends less on the governing rules than on the manner and spirit in which those rules are interpreted and applied by the staff in prisons. A prisoner despite his deeds
*Research fellow, doing PhD on Speedy Trial of Undertrials: a Case Study of Central Jails in Punjab, Law Department, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, 2015.
1 A Case for National Prison Policy by Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, cited in Halsbury’s Law, Lexis Nexis, Vol.3, Issue 04, monthly review on Criminal Justice System in India, April 2009.
2 All India Committee on Jail Reforms 1983.
and wrongs is a human being, the jail staff is required to be sensitized and adequately trained that they have to deal with human beings. Some adequate training programmes to awaken a response in them they must be made to feel that they are in the care of fellow humans. The purely mechanical functioning of a soulless administration will leave them untouched. A staff suited to the needs of the establishment becomes, therefore, the foremost task of a prison administration.3
For the purpose of establishment, the penal institutions in the States are mainly divided into two main classes – Central prisons and District jails and Subsidiary/Sub jails. The establishment of a central prison ordinarily consists of one superintendent, one deputy superintendent, two to three jailors, five to seven deputy-jailors, five to seven assistant jailors, one matron, reserve warders and intramural warders according to sanctioned strength, one female warder, two assistance medical officers and one compounder.
The Government usually accepts the recommendation of the Public Service Commission nominates the candidate for training and appoints him after he completes the training at the Jail Training School, relating to that area. The names for promotion to whole-time superintendents of district jails are recommended by the Inspector-General of prisons from among the jailors and confirmed by the Public Service Commission. The Civil Surgeon is the part-time superintendent in second, third fourth and fifth class district jails.4
Thus, the manner in which prison management and control is achieved, is largely in the hands of the administrator and his staff. For the administrator, this becomes a matter of applying philosophies and techniques to personnel management, the formulation of policies and operating procedures, and the improvement of correctional programs. 5
The deficiencies of prison service have been clearly brought out by Dr. Reckless in his following observation contained in his report to the Government of India:
“The expert has the distinct feeling that the jail department of India, as is true elsewhere, is a disadvantaged department. No secretary is really interested in jails. The police get the lion’s share of Government consideration, because of internal security. Government and public many times look upon jail
3 Vidya Bhushan, Prison Administration in India, forwarded by Dr.
Jyotsana H.Shah, (Director Central Bureau of Correctional Srevice), Government of India, New Delhi, 1970, p.43.
4 Vidya Bhushan, Prison Administration in India, forward by Dr.
Jyotsana H.Shah, p.44.
5 Paul F. Cromwell, Jails and Justice, Charles C. Thomas Publishers, USA,
1975, p. 70.
IJSER © 2015 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 1, January-2015 249
ISSN 2229-5518
administration as corrupt and brutal. The department is likely to get bottom consideration in the priority list. The jail officials feel that they are definitely disadvantaged in conditions of service as against the police, especially in pay scale. The Conference of Inspectors-General of prisons asked for equalization of related pay scale and cadres of service. Even though, the expert is naturally biased towards the development of a fine jail department. There is much truth in the assertion that jail department should have higher status in Government than police department, because jails can do, if given the opportunity a constructive job of rehabilitation6”.
Whatever disruption prisoners may cause, the more important to remember is that the real power always lies in the hands of authorities, and it is the authorities who must have set standards. The persons who manage prisons and who work in them are public servants and they should be conscious that they have to carry out the difficult tasks as part of the complex structure of civil society. They should not be places where profit is the motivating factor, and where the main aim is the monetary gain.
The successful implementation of correctional programme for the prisoners mainly depends on the quality of the prison staff at various levels. Staff matters, in general, include three important elements: recruitment, salary and promotion. “Recruitment”, to quote professor Bhambri;
‘means the efforts to find out and induce suitable candidates to compete for appointment to the public service… A bad policy of recruitment can week the entire personnel programme. Any country which wants to have efficient personnel for public service must have a sound and scientific policy of recruitment.” 7
Proper man power planning is sine qua non for a sound and scientific policy of recruitment. While the work load and the strength of various cadres in the prison service may differ from state to state according to their size and crime situation. As per prison statistics of National Crime Record Bureau 2012 regarding analysis of the sanctioned and actual staff strength in jails shows that the actual strength of the jail staff posted against the sanctioned strength in most of the States / UTs baring Punjab (65.8%), Haryana (58.7%), Rajasthan (56.0%), Gujarat (47.1%), Chhattisgarh (44.6%), Uttarakhand (40.0%), Jharkhand (36.8%) and Bihar (21.1%); where the percentage of the actual strength against the sanctioned strength are below the national average percentage (66.3%). Nagaland had reported 99.1% personnel in position against the sanctioned strength during 20128.
The prison institutions are managed by three categories of personnel viz., jail cadre staff, correctional staff and the
6 Jay Tilak Guha Roy, “Prison and Society- A Study of Indian Jail
System”, Gian Publishing House, New Delhi, India,1989, p.193
7 Jay Tilak Guha Roy, “Prison and Society- A Study of Indian Jail
System”, Gian Publishing House, New Delhi, India,1989, p.188.
8 Prison Statistics, NCRB 2012, Chapter – 11, Strength and Training of jail officials, p.140.
medical staff. The number of inmates per official is a real indicator of how well inmates are looked after in the prisons. The number of inmates per jail officials (like DG/IG, SP, Jailor, Warder, etc.), correctional staff and the medical staff as per NCRB figures 2012 concluded that a total number of jail inmates as per Prison statistics of NCRB is 385135 by the end of 2012. 9 number of jail inmates per jail official were there over 41798 number of jail officials throughout India. In case of correctional staff, there were 699 inmates per officials over 551 correctional staff personnel and, for medical staff, there were
238 jail inmates per official over 1619 medical officials throughout India. The total prison staff in all over India was
50358 by the end of 2012 and there were 8 total number of inmates per prison staff9.
Thus, manpower planning for the future organization of prison department in each state/union territory has to be done keeping in view the multi- dimensional role of this department in respect of institutional treatment, probation and after care of adult and young offenders.10
We cannot attract qualified staff until we can offer adequate pay scales, promotion, and career patterns. NCRB figures
2012 showed that a total of 3,216 (against sanctioned 5,837) and 24,669 (against sanctioned 61,702) quarters were available to the officers & the staff of Indian jails respectively.11 But we cannot offer these things unless and until we upgrade the quality of personnel and that cannot be upgraded without providing adequate training and infrastructure to prison personnel.
The All India Jail Manual Committee observed, “Correctional work is now recognized as a special work. The principal job of the correctional personnel is social re-education of the prisoners. An untrained and uninstructed personnel is not only ineffective but quite often becomes a hindrance to the proper implementation of correction policies. The training of correctional programme is, therefore, of vital importance”12.
9 Prison Statistics, NCRB 2012, Chapter – 11, Strength and Training of jail officials, p.141.
10 Jay Tilak Guha Roy, “Prison and Society- A Study of Indian Jail
System”, p.189.
11 Prison Statistics, NCRB 2012, Chapter – 11, Strength and Training of jail officials, p.140.
12 Report of All India Jail Manual Committee,p.31, cited in Vidya Bhushan, Prison administration in India, forward by Dr. Jyotsana H. Shah, Director Central Bureau of Correctional Service, Govt. of India, S. Chand and Co., New Delhi, 1970, p.55.
IJSER © 2015 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 1, January-2015 250
ISSN 2229-5518
Training infrastructure generally includes various aspects as physical infrastructure refers to the building where training is given, class rooms for delivering the lectures for training, library consisting of books and relevant literature relating to training, its importance, and relevance etc. and financial resources for running a training institution etc. Training equipments consisted of arms and ammunition, further the P.T parade, yoga, meditation, the different ways to reformatory or correctional behaviour/attitude as how to march past, how to salute, prison security, probation system according to the changing profile of crime and criminals. Whereas the training officers include the staff or persons who are appointed to give that specific training to those prison personnel.13
Training of jail personnel on various aspects of correctional administration is of vital importance and the available statistics shows that only a few States/UTs have made use of such facilities available in the various National and State level institutions. Basic training courses, Prison management courses, Good governance, Computer and On-line prison management information system, AIDS awareness, Personality development of jail officers, The RTI Act, Human rights, In-service refresher courses and Re-orientation courses were the areas in which various categories of jail personnel in the States & UTs were trained during the year 2012 as per NCRB figures14.
The ultimate object of staff training programmes should be to reflect the social realities surrounding the administration. According to Model Prison Manual, training programmes for correctional personnel should aim at:
(i) Acquainting correctional personnel with scientific and progressive methods of correctional Administration;
(ii) Making them conscious of their responsibilities and also of the role they have to play in a welfare state;
(iii) Broadening of their cultural and professional interests; experience; refining their abilities and skills; improving their performance of administrative duties; providing with experience to meet future needs of the department in positions of higher responsibilities and
(iv) Inculcating an esprit-de-corps amongst the correctional personnel.15
National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science, National Institute of Social Defence, RICAx (Regional Institute of Correctional Administration), National Human Rights Commission, BPR&D (Bureau of Police Research and Development), etc. organise training courses periodically for prison officials to sensitize them and give them a better understanding of correctional administration. As per prison statistics 2012, 25 States/UTs provided training to their personnel during the year 2012. The highest number of
13 Institute of Correctional Administration (ICA), Chandigarh.
14 Prison Statistics, NCRB 2012, Chapter – 11, Strength and Training of jail officials, p.140.
15 Model Prison Manual 1960, Government of India, p.57.
officials (1,121) were trained in Andhra Pradesh during the year 2012 followed by Madhya Pradesh (713), Maharashtra (582), West Bengal (558), Delhi (487), Gujarat (274) and Kerala (269)16.
Training and training infrastructure involves specific techniques and skills that are used in an occupation. Training is oriented toward job goals. Walter Buckingham made clear in the Journal of the National Education Association;
“…..The purpose of training is to develop certain automatic facilities as in language, bookkeeping, and the operation of machines……In the training program formula and techniques are learned, rules are memorized, and mental or physical skills are developed through practice and repletion”. 17
Skilled training and the training infrastructure are the two therapeutic factors, necessary for neutralize any functioning body especially in penological institutions like prison personnel/police personnel. A staff suited to the needs of the establishment is the foremost task of a prison administration. Training programmes for personnel in most of the States in India have not yet developed in accordance with the objectives of modern correctional administration. It is disheartening to note that much emphasis is still now being given on the security based training of the prison personnel rather than on training in correctional work. In view of continuous failure of our prison system in reformation of offenders, there is a growing need for redesigning the training programmes for prison personnel with the objects of preparing them for their specialized job which is not merely custodial but also correctional in future.18
In the recent passing years, the government of India spent huge amount of money in the Indian states to improve the infrastructure and conditions in prisons. But there is still much need of escalation for the appalling conditions of Indian jails. The Government of India cannot hang limp but must lash out to restore order, correct deviance and stabilize the status of prison personnel in Indian Prisons.
Training programmes, however, cannot be organized effectively without a compact training school. The functions of compact training institute, according to Model Prison Manual, should be: (i) training, (ii) research (iii) methods and organization work, and; (iv) publication of pamphlets, papers, handbooks, correctional journal, etc.19
Surprisingly, in India there are now only three training institutions that are at Lucknow, Pune and Villore for the training of officers of the prison department and only 11 for the training of lower staff, while the number of prisons in the country is 1276 and that of prison personnel 4,00,000
16 Prison Statistics, NCRB 2012, Chapter – 11, Strength and Training of jail officials, p.140.
17 Dwight C. Jarvis, “Institutional Treatment of the Offender, Corrections Consultant”, North Carolina Department, Gregarion Division, Mc Graw Hill Book Company, 1978, p.236.
18 Jay Tilak Guha Roy, “Prison and Society- A Study of Indian Jail
System”, Gian Publishing House, New Delhi, India, 1989, pp.192-193.
19 Model Prison Manual 1960, Government of India, p.58.
IJSER © 2015 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 1, January-2015 251
ISSN 2229-5518
approximately of North Indian region. Even these few institutions are not properly equipped to cater to the training needs to prison personnel.
Justice Mulla committee has, therefore, emphasized the need for setting up proper training instructions at State, Regional and the National level. While training to the security staff should be imparted at State level, training institutes for officers at the executive level should be established at the regional level, catering to the needs of a group of states and union territories. The committee has also suggested that the Central Government should establish a training institute at the national level to meet the training needs of senior officers. Apart from imparting training in policy formulation, planning and various aspects of management, this institute is also expected to play a useful role in imparting a correctional service of these officers. Curriculum for these training programmes should be carefully drawn up keeping in view the broad objectives of modern correctional administration and the training needs of each particular group of participants.20
On the basis of recommendations of the All India Jail Reforms Committee (1980-83) emphasis has been laid on training of prison personnel and the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs while considering the scheme on Modernization of Prison Administration decided that the Regional Training Centres for Prison Personnel should be established by the Central Government, preferably in Union Territories. In pursuance to this decision, Institute of Correctional Administration has been set up and developed as a Regional Institute on lines with the existing Institute at Vellore. This institute is running with the full financial assistance from the Centre. The Institute is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act with its own Board of Management. 21
Finally, the existing condition of prison service in respect of work load and duty hours of the personal should necessarily be improved. The prison executives and their assistants and other guarding staff are now to spend the better part of their duty hours not in ‘intensive personal work with the prisoner’ for whose welfare they are recruited and paid form the public exchequer, but in ‘just administrative and clerical work on the one hand and policing work in the yards of the prison on the other.’ To quote Dr. Reckless, “It would be just as if the sisters or nurses or a hospital and the doctors had no time for patients but merely kept books and saw to it that they stayed in bed.22
2.1 Draft of a National Policy on Prisons formulated by the all India committee on Jail Reforms of 1980-83
The Government of India has constituted an All India
Committee on Jail Reforms under the chairmanship of Mr
20 Model Prison Manual 1960, Government of India, note 6, pp. 285-286.
21 Institute of Correctional Administration (ICA), Chandigarh.
22 D.Reckless, “Jail Administration in India”, cited in note 10, Model
Prison Manual 1960, Government of India,
Justice A. N. Mulla in 1980. The committee submitted its report in 1983. This committee examined all aspects of prison administration and made suitable recommendation respecting various issues involved. A total of 658 recommendations made by this committee on various issues on prison management were circulated to all States and UTs for its implementation, because the responsibility of managing the prisons is that of the State Governments as ‘Prisons’ is a ‘State’ subject under the List II—State List of the Seventh Schedule (Entry 4) of the Constitution of India. The Committee has also suggested that there is an immediate need to have a national policy on prisons and proposed a draft National Policy on Prisons. The State shall endeavor to bring about basic uniformity in the minimum standards of management of prisons and treatment of offenders in the country. Among those long listed, some are like prisons service shall be developed as a professional career service. Proper training facilities for prison personnel shall be developed at the national, regional and state levels. In view of the importance of uniform development of prisons in the country, the Central Government shall set up a high status National Commission on Prisons on a permanent basis. This shall be a specialized body to advice the Government of India, the State Governments and the Union Territory Administrations on all matters, relating to prisons and allied services. Adequate funds shall be placed at the disposal of the commission. The commission shall prepare an annual national report on the administration of prisons and allied services, which shall be placed before the parliament for discussion 23.
It is now fully recognized that however high the ideals or an administration, however admirable its rules, it is on their application by the men in daily contact with the prisoners that the success of the institution must depend. The treatment of prisoners is a specialized task and great effort must be put forth to train prison officials in the technique and theory of reformatory work.
“Special training, as well as high qualities of head and heart, is required to make a good reformatory officer. Then only will the administration of public punishment become scientific, uniform and successful when it is raised to the dignity of a profession, and men are specially trained for it, as they are for other pursuits”24.
Although each part of the criminal justice system should be able to establish employment standards that are designed to upgrade the quality of staff, training needs and infrastructure has not been done. Society has not realized what progress could be made with quality personnel. Administrators have been too concerned with keeping the budget for personnel low. And the dead hand of the past has left the criminal justice system with no effective standards for employment. As a result, police, prison personnel, corrections personnel, and probation and parole officers have been poorly qualified and poorly trained, leading to failure in the line of duty.
23 All India Jail Reforms Committee, 1980-1983, cited in Jay Tilak Guha Roy, “Prison and Society- A Study of Indian Jail System”, Gian Publishing House, New Delhi, India,1989, p.19.
24 J.O.Statusman, “The Prison Staff in the Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Sciences”, 1931, p.68.
IJSER © 2015 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 1, January-2015 252
ISSN 2229-5518
Some professions have a long tradition of high standards for entry into them. Law, medicine, social work, and teaching are only a few that demand high standards of education and personal behaviour before entry. Since few agencies have been able to set adequate entry standards for employees, it has been necessary to establish regulating agencies, such as the Criminal Justice Training and Standards Council, to do so. When such an agency has the support of the legislature and the authority of law, the process of upgrading personnel is set into motion. Then it is possible to increase the standards and quality of employment, along with pay levels.
3. EVALUATION OF TRAINING
In an effective program of staff development, evaluation is
a continuous and self-correcting process. First, we must
measure the effectiveness of personnel in terms of job function
and goal achievement, since the training program, training
infrastructure and the value of individual employees will be
affected by this evaluation. Second, we must measure the
effectiveness of the training program itself in terms of specific
behavioral changes both among personnel and among
offenders.
There is an ongoing need to evaluate the effectiveness of
training within the program itself. An outside evaluation is
made when the entire correctional program is rated by the
Research and Evaluation Unit, but the training program must
be evaluated at every step25. The first step is to find out the
needs of the personnel. A questionnaire should administer
annually to get insight into the attitudes of staff and how the
new programs and training were affecting those attitudes.
Eventually, this questionnaire should be given to social
workers and psychologists as well.
The long-range evaluation of all training programs is not
yet a possibility. At the end of first year of training, the
attitudinal evaluation will be administrated. This will gave a
new base line view of each school, reflecting the impact of
both basic and in-service training. There has been some
behavioral change on the part of those involved in the in-
service training, but the cumulative ongoing effect has yet to
be measured. On the positive side has been the change in
attitude towards training. Initially, there is a fairly high level
of hostility toward mandatory training, both in-service and
basic, then a general acceptance of both trainers and training.
The second step in evaluation involves a pretest and a
posttest. Before training begins, an objective test is given to all
participants. This tells the trainers how much knowledge the
trainees have, and it keeps the training from being too easy or
too difficult. After the training, a second test is given. This tells
the training staff how much the trainees have learned. It also
helps to evaluate the training program and to determine how
effective each segment of training was.
25 Dwight C. Jarvis, “Corrections consultant, Institutional Treatment of the Offender”, North Carolina Department of Correction, Gregerian Division, Mc Graw-Hill Book Company,1978, p.254.
A third step in evaluation is accomplished by asking the trainees to rate each trainer. At the ends of the training cycle, trainees to rate each trainees fill out an evaluation sheet that is based on a five-point scale and has twenty objective questions. Training personnel are evaluated in terms of preparation, delivery, interest of subjects, relevance, and a wide range of other aspects. This allows trainers to evaluate themselves regularly, and it quickly points to developing problems. It also serves to check on the individual trainer’s “emotional reactions” to a given training exercise – reactions that are difficult to measure.
A fourth step asks trainees to evaluate their current training experience. Evaluation forms are used following all training. The results of this evaluation of in-service training are significant. These forms are filled in anonymously and consist of both objective and subjective questions26.
An adequate training program must be based on an effective philosophy of behavioral change, as well as on sound social science theory and knowledge. Pre-entry or basic training is the most effective way to prepare personnel for their role as change agents. It must be based on sound philosophy and theory and must be useful in managing the resocialization of offenders.
As in every major program in corrections, an evaluation element must be built into training from the start. Effective evaluation will enable the training unit to adjust the content, techniques, and direction of training program to fit ever- changing needs. Evaluation of the training program should focus on content and techniques, presentation of material, validity of material, and attitudinal and behavioural change among trained personnel 27.
In pursuance to the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Ramamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka, 1996, the Government of India has constituted All India Model Prison Manual Committee in November, 2000 under the chairmanship of Director General of BPR&D to prepare a Model Prison Manual for the Superintendence and Management of Prisons in India in order to maintain uniformity in the working of prisons throughout the country. This manual has been circulated to all States/UTs for adoption after the acceptance by Government of India in January, 2004. It would not be out of place to mention here that the draft national policy on prisons as proposed by the All India Committee on Jail Reforms which is enumerated in the preceding account was given due consideration by this committee while preparing the Model Prison Manual under reference28.
4. CONCLUSION
26 Dwight C. Jarvis, “Adult Basic and In- Service Training in Youthful
Offender Programme”, Adult Leadership, June 1975, p.370.
27 Dwight C. Jarvis, “Corrections consultant, Institutional Treatment of the Offender”, North Carolina Department of Correction, Gregerian Division, Mc Graw-Hill Book Company,1978, pp.254-255.
28 www.bprd.gov.in. 23rd July, 2013.
IJSER © 2015 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 1, January-2015 253
ISSN 2229-5518
In summing up, confinement is a stressful experience under the best of circumstances. Under the worst it can become intolerable. There are many sources of stress for the prisoners. The closing of the front gate behind him is a denial of his freedom, a frustration of his accessioned ways of life, a humiliation, and a label of being an undesirable member of society29.
The real purpose of sending criminals to prison is to transform them into honest and law abiding citizens, by inculcating in them a distaste of crime and criminality. But in actual practice, the prison authorities try to bring out rethreading of inmates by use of force and compulsive methods. Consequently, the change in inmates is temporary and lasts only till the period they are in prisons, and as soon as they are released, they quite often return to the criminal world. It is for this reason that modern trend is to lay greater emphasis on psychiatric conditions of the prisoners so that they can be rehabilitated to normal life in the community. This objective can be successfully achieved through the sincerity, devotion and tactfulness of the prison officials that helps considerably in the process of offenders’ rehabilitation30.
Crime is eternal - as eternal as society. Crime cannot be abolished except in a non-existent Utopia. No way of drawing the scheme of the good life has yet been discovered which will fulfill the needs of all human beings at all times. In the modern state system opportunities for crime abound and impunity is assured at a time when humanity having lost its moorings, is still groping for some new methods of social control.31
Ironically, while the number of inmates far outstrips capacity, jailers are in short supply. In Indian prisons, the posts filled are less than the sanctioned strength. In effect, there is almost strength of four times the inmates against the odd staff strength. “We work seven days a week, without a single day off, because there are too few of us, a jailer told”. The absence of holidays for a high-stress job like guarding prisons only adds to the pressure-cooker like situation inside the jail. “The British understood the importance of jail guards, and paid them more than any other government employee. But now, we get paid less than the police, for working without weekly offs, said a jailer. If I want to take a day or two off in a few months, I need to send in a written leave application to my superior” 32.
Therefore, a reformative philosophy, rehabilitative strategy, therapeutic prison treatment and enlivening of prisoner’s personality through a technology of fostering the fullness of being such a creative art of social defense and correctional process activising fundamental guarantees of prisoner’s rights, is hopeful not of national prison policy struck by the
29 Paul F. Cromewell, “Jail and Justice”, Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield, U.S.A., 1975, p. 66.
30 N. V. Paranjape, “Criminology and Penology”, Central Law
Publications, Allahabad, India, 2001, p. 284.
31 Madhavaro Mahaworker, “Prison Management, Problems and
Solutions”, Kalpaz Publications, Delhi, 2006, p.203
32 The Times of India, India, entitled Behind High Walls, Metal Bars
These Prisoners Lead a Miserable Life, Nov.24, 2011.
Constitution and the Court. Tersely put, the State must discover and engineer the highway to human rehabilitation and put it into practice in the prison system33.
33 A Case for National Prison Policy by Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, cited in Halsbury’s Law, Lexis Nexis, Vol.3, Issue 04, monthly review on Criminal Justice System in India, April 2009.
IJSER © 2015 http://www.ijser.org
The persons arrested by Law-enforcement Agencies and the Prisoners requiring to be produced before a Court, routinely require to be secured during transit. The arrest could be either in pursuance of a Warrant issued by Court or without a warrant in appropriate cases. In India, the basic law for arrest is laid down in Chapter V of The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The Code stipulates (Section 46) that the person making the arrest shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action. For female arrestees there are special provisions. Section 49 of the Code further lays down that the person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape. Section 55A casts a duty on the person having the custody of an accused to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the accused. The Rules for securing the arrested person are contained in the State Police Manuals, mostly in Chapters dealing with the Police Station work or in Chapters dealing with Police Escorts.
As regards the attendance of prisoners for production before Court, the enabling provisions are contained in the Attendance of Prisoners Act 1955. The State Governments are empowered to make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act. However the practical position is that the Prison authorities handover the prisoners required for production before Court to the Police Escort Party at the Jail gate and then onwards it is the Police which is responsible for securing the prisoner till the prisoner is handed back to the jail or otherwise disposed off in accordance with Court orders. They follow the Rules relating to Escorts contained in the State Police Manuals. It is these Rules and their implementation which has come to the adverse notice of Courts time and again.
Why do we need to secure the arrested person or the prisoner at all? Besides the most important reason which is clear by section 49 of the Code that it is to prevent his escape, there are other cogent reasons which are not apparent on the face of the issue. Most important is that unsecured arrested person is easy to be forcibly taken away not only by the well-wishers of the arrested person but by his arch enemies also. Secondly it is also important to distinguish the arrested person and prisoner from other persons in the Crowd that is so common during Transit through train, Bus and other public transport and also in the Court Premises. Their inter-mingling with the crowd and possibility of melting away in the melee is not desirable. In any case the arrested person should not be tempted to develop a feeling that there are opportunities galore for his easy escape. Target hardening needs to be conspicuous. There have also been cases where after arrest an unsecured prisoner tried to commit suicide by jumping out from the vehicle or train or cause hurt to himself.
All over the world, handcuffing is the preferred and most prevalent method of effecting arrest. While making arrest, not many countries make any concession from handcuffing even to women arrestees. In fact the copy-book method of handcuffing is to handcuff both the hands tied together from behind. The Law in most of the countries does not make a distinction on various methods of securing arrestee based on the gravity of offence. If arrest is to be made, it is mostly by immediate handcuffing. What is different from our country is the treatment after the Handcuffing. In most of the countries the arresting team has a vehicle ready at hand for carrying the arrestee to the Police Station and after conducting a mandatory body search the arrestee is immediately placed in the vehicle. The occasion for parading in full public view with handcuffs on, does not arise at all. Another difference is that of the material of which the Handcuff is made of. Nowadays a modern handcuff is no longer the traditional Metal Handcuff as normally used in our country. We also still use manila rope to hold on to the Handcuffed person making him no better than the spectacle of performing monkey with reins in the hand of the Madaari.
The issue of Handcuffing has come to be discussed in a number of cases in different High Courts and the Supreme Court of India. The following are some landmark cases on the subject of Handcuffing.
1. Suo Motu Contempt Petition no. 10 of 1996 , CIV vs. Respondent (MP Dwivedi and others) 1996 SCC (1) 718 Decided on 8/1/1996 by a 3 Judge Bench
Contemnors were Supdt of Police Jhabua, SDPO Alirajpur, Town SI Alirajpur, SI Sendua, Head Const. Sendua PS, SDM Alirajpur, JM First Class Alirajpur
Issue was Handcuffing and Parading ( in 1992/93) the arrested members of Khedat Mazdoor Chetna Sangath working for upliftment of Tribals in District Jhabua, in streets of Alirajpur and producing arrestees in handcuffs before the JMFC. The under-trials had been arrested for agitating on the construction of a Dam ( Sardar Sarovar Dam on River Narmada)
The handcuffing was sought to be justified in terms of MP Police Regulation Para 465 under the caption ‘the list of prisoners who must be handcuffed’. Further it was stated that the under-trials were likely to escape, and a large crowd collected could have forced their release.
Court ordered that MP Police regulations be suitably amended so as to take note of Judgment in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration’s case and ordered entries in Personal files of Contemnors about Supreme Court’s disapproval of their conduct in the case.
2. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration 1980 SCC 526
The under-trial prisoner had sent telegram to Supreme Court complaining about handcuffing while taking him to Court and back. While Delhi Administration pointed out the necessity of Handcuffing the petitioner as he was a crook wanted in a number of cases and could hoodwink the Escort party in escaping, the petitioner claimed that he was a ‘better class’ prisoner and deserved more respectable treatment as provided in Rule 26.21A of Punjab Police Rule.
Court ordered (29 April 1980,per Justice V.R. Krishnaiyar and on behalf of Justice Chinnappa Reddy and himself) that “the practice of Handcuffing as a routine be strictly stopped forthwith. They should be used only when the person is desperate, rowdy, or is involved in a non-bailable offence. There should be normally no occasion to handcuff persons occupying good social position in public life, or professionals like Jurists, Advocates, doctor, writers, educationists and well known journalists”. Court held that Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman, and therefore unreasonable, is over-harsh, and at first flush arbitrary.
Court further held that “the only circumstance which validates incapacitation by irons –an extreme measure- is that otherwise there is no other reasonable way of preventing his escape, in the given circumstances. Securing the prisoner being necessity of judicial trial, the State must take steps in this behalf. Heavy deprivation of personal liberty must be justifiable as reasonable restriction in the circumstances…. So it is that to be consistent with Articles 14 and 19 handcuffs must be the last refuge not the routine regimen. If few more Guards will suffice, then no handcuffs. If a close watch by armed policemen will do then no handcuffs. If alternative measures may be provided, then no iron bondage. This is the legal norm.”
The Court held that the provisions of Rule 26.21A and 26.22 of Chapter XXVI are untenable. The provision of Rule 26.22 was held to be violative of Article 14, 19 and 21. The Court followed Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and others. 1978 4 SCC 494 (fetters specially Bar-fetters be shunned, fetters /handcuffs should only be used if a person exhibits a credible tendency for violence or escape) and applied Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 2 SCR 621(ambit of personal liberty is wide)
Justice R.S. Pathak (concurring) after having read the judgment of brother judge sat forth his own views. He stated, “ Now whether handcuffs or other restraint should be imposed on a prisoner I a matter for the decision of the authority responsible for hi custody. It is a judgment to be exercised with reference to each individual case. It is for that authority to exercise its discretion, and I am not willing to accept that the primary discretion should be that of any other. The matter is one where the circumstance may change from one moment to another and inevitably in some cases it may fall to the decision of the escorting authority midway to decide on imposing a restraint on the prisoner. I do not think that any prior decision of an external authority can be reasonably imposed on the exercise of that power. But I do agree that thee is room for imposing a supervisory regime over the exercise of that power.”He suggested that the “Court concerned could be informed by custodial authority and that court could work out the modalities and whether to handcuff or not could be left to be dealt with the Magistrate in light of his observations”.
3. Sunil Gupta and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others 1990 SCC(3) 119 decided on 02/05/1990
The issue was whether the Escort party followed the instructions for Handcuffing as contained in Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation Chapter VII Part III Rule 465-Prisoners-handcuffs-use of- as at all permissible. This Rule provides that ‘when a prisoner is to be taken from Court to Jail or Jail to court in the custody, the Magistrate or the Jail Superintendent should give instructions in writing as to whether the prisoner will be handcuffed or not and the Escort commander shall follow the instructions. Further even if ‘the instructions are for not to handcuff the prisoner and thereafter due to some reasons if the Escort commander feels that it is necessary to handcuff the prisoner, he would do so inspite of the instructions to the contrary.
In the instant case, Sunil Gupta and others as members of ‘Kisan Adivasi Sangthan Kesala’,Hoshangabad , staged ‘Dharna’ demanding regular posting of Primary school teachers on regular basis in a particular school and were arrested for offence under Section 186 IPC ( a bailable section) and some other related cases and remanded to Jail as they refused to go on Bail. They were produced before the Court from Jail and were handcuffed during the journey. On return journey they were again handcuffed and taken back. No order of Magistrate or Jail Supdt was obtained by the Escort, as mandated by the Regulation. The explanation that the handcuffing was done in as after pronouncement of judgment on their conviction the petitioners got agitated , turned violent and shouted slogans outside and inside the court and in such turbulent circumstances ,the escort party felt that it was necessary to handcuff the prisoners did not cut ice with the Supreme Court. It found holes in the assertion and the explanation unconvincing.
The Court (per Justice Pandyan S.R. for Justice Jayachandra Reddy and self) held that the Handcuffing was unjustified and recorded its disapproval. The Government of Madhya Pradesh was directed to take appropriate action against the erring escort party for unjustly and unreasonably handcuffing petitioners in accordance with law. It said that “even if the extreme circumstances necessitate the escort party to bind the prisoners in fetters ,the escort party should record the reasons for doing so in writing and intimate the Court so that the Court considering the circumstances either approves or disapproves the action of the escort party and issue necessary directions”.
Previous rulings of Prem Shankar Shukla, Bhim Singh, Maneka Gandhi, Sunil Batra were referred to.
4. Citizens for Democracy vs. State of Assam and others
1995 (3) SCC 743
Seven TADA Detenues activists of ULFA undergoing medical treatment were lodged in GMCH special ward tied to their hospital Bed with Handcuff and Rope so as have mobility within the room but preventing their escape. The State Government provided details of previous escape/rescue of Terrorists from 1991 to 1994, from Police/judicial Custody, including escape of 7 from GMCH itself. The contention of the government was that chances of escape increased when the detenues were not handcuffed.
Karnataka Prison Manual 1978 Free
The Court (per Justice Kuldip Singh for Justice N Venkatachala and self) viewed that there was no material to draw inference that the detenues were likely to jump jail or break out of custody. … The antecedents of the detenues are not known. There is nothing on the record to show that they are prone to violence. General averment that the detenues are hard core activists of ULFA … are not sufficient to place them under fetters and ropes while lodged in closed ward of the hospital as patients. It is not disputed that while in jail the detenues were not handcuffed. They cannot be in worst condition while in hospital under treatment as patients. … The handcuffing and in addition tying with ropes of the patient prisoners who are lodged in the hospital is the least we can say, inhuman and in utter violation of the Human right guaranteed under the International Law and the law of the land. We are therefore of the view that the action of the Respondents was wholly unjustified and against the law.
The Court then laid down that
(1) As a rule handcuffs or other fetters shall not be forced on a prisoner-convict or under-trial-while lodged in a jail or while transporting or in transit from one jail to another or from jail to Court and back. The police and the jail authorities, on their own, shall have no authority to direct the hand-cuffing of any inmate of a jail in the country or during transport from one jail to another or from jail to court and back.
(2) Where the police or the jail authorities have well-grounded basis for drawing a strong inference that a particular prisoner is likely to jump jail or break out of the custody then the said prisoner be produced before the Magistrate concerned and a prayer for permission to handcuff the prisoner be made before the said Magistrate. Save in rare cases of concrete proof regarding proneness of the prisoner to violence,’ his tendency to escape, he being so dangerous/desperate and the finding that no other practical way of forbidding escape is available, the Magistrate may grant permission to handcuff the prisoner.
(3) In all the cases where a person arrested by police, is produced before the Magistrate and remand - judicial or non-judicial - is given by the Magistrate the person concerned shall not be handcuffed unless special orders in that respect are obtained from the Magistrate at the time of the grant of the remand.
(4) When the police arrests a person in execution of a warrant of arrest obtained form a Magistrate, the person so arrested shall not be handcuffed unless the police has also obtained orders from the Magistrate for the handcuffing of the person to be so arrested.
(5) Where a person is arrested by the police without warrant the police officer concerned may if he is satisfied, on the basis of the guide-lines given by us in para above, that it is necessary to handcuff such a person, he may do so till the time he is taken to the police station and thereafter his production before the Magistrate. Further use of fetters thereafter can only be under the orders of the Magistrate as already indicated by us.
The Court directed all ranks of police and the prison authorities to meticulously obey the above mentioned directions. Any violation of any of the directions issued by us by any rank of police in the country or member of the jail establishment shall be summarily punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act apart from other penal consequences under law. The writ petition was allowed in the above terms. No costs
5. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and others 1978 AIR 1675
Karnataka Prison Manual 1978 Full
Decided on 30 August 1978
The issue before the Court was whether Solitary confinement for prisoner under sentence of death under section 30 and Imposition of bar-fetters under section 56 of the Prison’s Act were violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India 1950
The Court (per Justice V.R. Krishnaiyer for himself and Chandrachud(CJ), Syed Murtaza Fazal Ali, P.N. Singhal JJs, Justice D.A. Desai separately) noted that the Law Commission in its 42nd Report has recommended the abolition of solitary confinement. Further solitary confinement is imposed as a punishment under section 73 and 74 IPC and under prison manual as a matter of prison discipline. It held that Section 30 and section 56 both were intra vires. At the same time it gave narrow interpretation to the words Solitary Confinement and ‘Prisoner under sentence of death’. It also opined that Fetters under Section 56 of Prison Act cannot be put for indefinitely long periods and without any adequate reason.
The Court examined in great details the issue of fetters on prisoners inside the jail, its sanction, practice and desirability. It held,”Undoubtedly, the limited locomotion that a prisoner may enjoy while being incarcerated is seriously curtailed by being put in bar fetters. Article 21 forbids deprivation of personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law and curtailment of personal; liberty to such an extent as to be a negation of it would constitute deprivation. Bar fetters make a serious in-road on the limited personal liberty which a prisoner is left with and, therefore, before such erosion can be justified it must have the authority of law. At one stage it was felt that the provision contained in para 399(3) would provide the sanction of law for the purpose of article 21. Section 56 confers power for issuing instructions by the Inspector General of Prison with the sanction of the State Government and section 59 confers power on the State Government to make rules which would include the rule regulating confinement in fetters. A deeper probe into the sanction behind enactment of para 399 ultimately led the learned Additional Solicitor General to make the statement on behalf of the respondents that para 399 of the Punjab Jail Manual is not a statutory rule referable either to s. 59 or 60 of the Prisons Act, 1894. Learned Counsel stated that despite all efforts respondents were unable to obtain the original or even a copy of sanction of the local Government referred to in s. 56. We must, therefore, conclude that the provision contained in para 399 is not statutory and has not the authority of law. “
The Court also examined if the power conferred on the Superintendent by s. 56 is unguided and uncanalised in the sense that the Superintendent can pick and choose a prisoner arbitrarily for being subjected to bar fetters for such length of time as he thinks fit, and for any purpose he considers desirable, punitive or otherwise. It said,” A bare perusal of s. 56 would show that the Superintendent may put a prisoner in bar fetters (i) when he considers it necessary; (i;) with reference either to the state of the prison or character of the prisoner; and (iii) for the safe custody of the prisoner. Now we would exclude from consideration the state of prison requirement because there is no material placed on record to show that the petitioner was put in bar fetters in view of the physical state of the Tihar Central Jail. But the Superintendent has first to be satisfied about the necessity of putting a prisoner in bar fetters and 'necessity' is certainly opposed to mere expediency. The necessity for putting the prisoner in bar fetters would have to be examined in the context of the character of the prisoner and the safe custody of the prisoner. The safe custody of the prisoner may comprehend both the after custody of the prisoner who is being put in bar fetters and of his companions in the prison. We must here bear in mind that the Superintendent is required to fully record in his Journal and in the prisoner's history ticket the reasons for putting the prisoner in bar fetters. Thus the power conferred by section 56 is neither un-canalised nor unguided “.
The Ruling given in above case was reiterated in Kishor Singh vs. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1981 SC 625 ) in which there was inter-alia allegation that the prisoner was manhandled severely by the escort police while being brought to the Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the provision of Article 21 of the Constitution of India continue to apply to the prisoner. The respect for human person and sympathy for Humanist creed were underlined by the Court and asked for suitable changes in the Police and Prison Rules. In a subsequent case (Delhi Judicial Service Association vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 Sc 2176) involving handcuffing of a Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Supreme Court has issued guidelines regarding arrest and detention of judicial officers. These guidelines inter-alia provided
“…(vii) There should be no handcuffing of a Judicial Officer. If however violent resistance to arrest is offered or there is imminent need to effect physical arrest in order to avert danger to life and limb ,the person resisting arrest may be overpowered and handcuffed. …But the burden would be on the to establish the necessity for effecting physical arrest and handcuffing the judicial officer and if it is established that the physical arrest and handcuffing the judicial officer as unjustified ,the police officers causing or responsible for such arrest and handcuffing would be guilty of misconduct and would also be personally liable for compensation and /or damages as may be summarily determined by the High Court”
After a series of Court decisions discussed above, most of the States have already made suitable amendments in their State Police Manuals on the subject of use of Handcuffs for securing the arrested person/prisoner. National Human Rights Commission has also issued directives for strict compliance by the Sate Governments. Thus legal position regarding Handcuffing is that it is primarily not permitted in India. Any Police person handcuffing an individual has to be ready to explain his conduct both in a Departmental action as well as before the Court where he could be hauled up for Contempt of Court. On the other hand during crime investigation in the field, the investigating officer faces the real challenge of arresting the suspect from midst of his people including supporters. This frequently occurring requirement is a delicate task in which the arresting team is under imminent danger of being attacked by the suspect or his supporters. Further in many cases before the suspect is overpowered, he tries to run away avoiding arrest. Antecedents or character of suspect or even the details of offence and accomplices present around may not be clear at the time of confronting the suspect. Therefore it stands to reason that once there is a prima-facie suspicion of involvement in a cognizable offence, the suspect must be arrested and his hands restrained by use of handcuffs. No doubt the use of handcuffs is a use of force and therefore it must stand the test of reasonableness. A balance of Human rights of the prisoner/arrested person and the society at large has to be reached.
The safety of arresting / escorting team personnel from violence by arrested person/prisoner or his friends/enemies is a real possibility and not a figment of imagination. The prestige and comfort of prisoner/arrested person has to be balanced by the harsh realities of day to day crime situation in that area. The much touted use of Video Conferencing to mark the Prisoner’s presence in Court is not a practical or feasible solution considering large number of prisoners required to be produced before different Courts everyday. A total of 60,41,559 cognizable crimes were registered in India in 2012. In the same period there were 1, 27,789 Convicts and 2,54,857 undertrials in the Indian Prisons . Besides the Undeertrials, few of these convicts were also facing trials requiring their regular production before the Court. In 2012, a total of 74,20,090 persons were arrested under different crime heads. Those not released on Bail /personal Bond by police or released after questioning were produced before the Court. Thus the problem of incident free arrest and safe carriage of prisoner is really gigantic for our country. The spread of technology required for such Video coverage is also limited to big towns, whereas the Courts are also located in Moffusil areas. Its use is also dependent on stable power supply and noiseless communication channel both of which are not assured in rural areas.
Unfortunately there is no empirical data or credible research done in this area to suggest the efficacy or otherwise of handcuffing or the extra manpower load on the police which is required to implement the Supreme Court verdict of “No Handcuff is the rule.”The students and experts in the field of Criminology and Police Sciences should take up such fact finding research. They should also study the practices in other Democratic countries as well and go through the studies made there on the subject. This will help them to come out with useful data and suggestions which could be placed before the Supreme Court for fresh consideration of their Ruling.
Sharda Prasad,
Advocate, Practicing in Supreme Court
'Loved reading this piece by Sharda Prasad?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!'
Karnataka Prison Manual 1978
Karnataka Prison Manual 1978 Book
Tags :Criminal Law