CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION(CHAPTER-6)
Research person- Dinesh Gardia
Human rights are being basic rights, it cannot be denied to any one irrespective of nationality,
place of birth, caste, creed, religion, age, sex etc. All Human beings are entitled to some basic
human rights by virtue of being as a member of human family. Under international as well as
national laws provisions has been incorporated for the protection of human rights. Prisoners or
trial awaiting persons are also by virtue of being human beings are vested with some basic human
rights even under confinement. Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that: “No one
shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment” the United
Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states in part: “All persons deprived of their
liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human
person”. According to the Article of 25 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights “All Human
beings are said to be born free and equal in dignity”. The human rights are said to be the natural
and basic birth rights of all human being without any discrimination and therefore everyone is
equally liable for all these rights. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, recognizes that the right
to life includes a right to live with human dignity and not mere animal existence. Thus, a prison
atmosphere can be accepted as civilized only if it recognizes the basic human rights and the
constitutional rights of the prisoners and makes efforts for the effective and meaningful enjoyment
of the same by means of prison reforms.
The constitution of India confers number of fundamental rights upon citizens which are also
available to prisoners. The criminal justice system in India also is basically based on three
principles. These three principles are said to be principles of fair trial. such as presumption of
innocence unless guilt is proved, burden of proving guilt is always on prosecution that prosecution
must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt & benefit of doubt is always given to the accused
The Prisoners Act of 1894 and 1990, has made different provisions for the protection and welfare
of prisoners such as provisions for accommodation and sanitary conditions for prisoners, provision
for the shelter and safe custody of the excess number of prisoners who cannot be safely kept in
any prison, provisions relating mental and physical state of prisoners, provisions relating to the
examination of prisoners by qualified Medical Officer, provisions relating to separation of
prisoners, containing female and male prisoners, civil and criminal prisoners and convicted and
under trail prisoners, provisions relating to treatment of under trials, civil prisoners, parole and
temporary release of prisoners. These laws also impose duty on the govt. for maintenance of
infrastructure of jails in proper conditions. The prisons are not only be considered as place of
detention, but also a considered as reformatory schools. It is the duty of Government for the
removal of any prisoner detained under any order or sentence of any court, which is of unsound
mind to a lunatic asylum and other place where he will be given proper treatment
The role of the Supreme Court in the past few years in introducing jail reforms has been
commendable. Supreme Court in its various judgments tries to protect the rights and freedoms of
citizens of India including rights and freedoms of prisoners. Supreme Court while extending the
horizons of constructional rights has given wide interpretation to constitutional provisions.
Supreme Court of India has been active in responding human rights of prisoners. They have given
different category of rights to the prisoners during detention which are specifically recognized
under Indian laws as well as under principles of international covenants. Following are some of
the assumptions based upon which supreme court has given these basic rights even to the prisoners.
> “Convicts are not by mere reason of the conviction denuded of all the fundamental rights which
they otherwise possess”
> “Like you and me, prisoners are also human beings. Hence, all such rights except
those that are taken away in the legitimate process of incarceration still remain with the prisoner.
These include rights that are related to the protection of basic human dignity as well as those for
the development of the prisoner into a better human being.
> If a person commits any crime, it does not mean that by committing a crime, he/she ceases to be
a human being and that he/she can be deprived of those aspects of life which constitutes human
dignity.
> It is increasingly being recognized that a citizen does not cease to be a citizen just because he/she
has become a prisoner.
> The convicted persons go to prisons as punishment and not for punishment Prison sentence has
to be carried out as per the courts orders and no additional punishment can be inflicted by the
prison authorities without sanction.
> Prisoners depend on prison authorities for almost all of their day to day needs, and the state
possesses control over their life and liberty, the mechanism of rights springs up to prevent the
authorities from abusing their power. Prison authorities have to be, therefore, accountable for the
manner in which they exercise their custody over persons in their care, especially as regards their
wide discretionary powers.
> Imprisonment as punishment is now rethought of as „rehabilitative punishment. This involves a
philosophy that individuals are incarcerated so that they have an opportunity to learn alternative
behaviors to curb their deviant lifestyles. Correction, therefore, is a system designed to correct
those traits that result in criminal behavior. The rehabilitative model argues that the purpose of
incarceration is to reform inmates through educational, training, and counseling programmes. This
development and growth requires certain human rights with outwhich no reformation takes place.
> Disturbing conditions of the prison and violation of the basic human rights such as custodial
deaths, physical violence/torture, police excess, degrading treatment, custodial rape, poor quality
of food, lack of water supply, poor health system support, not producing the prisoners to the court,
unjustified prolonged incarceration, forced labour and other problems observed by the apex court
have led to judicial activism.
> Overcrowded prisons, prolonged detention of under trial prisoners, unsatisfactory living
condition and allegations of indifferent and even inhuman behavior by prison staff has repeatedly attracted the attention of critics over the years. Unfortunately, little has changed. There have been
no worthwhile reforms affecting the basic issues of relevance to prison administration in India.
FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
The dissertation on "Human Rights of Under trail Prisoners in India: A Critical analysis with
reference to criminal justice system" aims to explore the various dimensions of human rights
violations experienced by prisoners in the Indian context. The study draws on secondary sources
such as academic literature, reports, and data provided by various governmental and non-
governmental organizations.
The study reveals that the Indian prison system is plagued by several human rights violations,
including overcrowding, lack of sanitation and hygiene, inadequate medical facilities, and poor
nutrition. Additionally, the study found that there is a lack of legal aid and access to justice for
prisoners, and they often face abuse and violence from the prison staff.
Furthermore, the dissertation discusses the international legal framework for the protection of
prisoners' human rights, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
In conclusion, the study underscores the need for urgent reforms in the Indian prison system to
ensure the protection and promotion of under trail prisoners' human rights. The study recommends
that the government takes concrete steps to improve prison conditions, ensure access to justice
and legal aid, and protect marginalized groups in prisons. Additionally, the study suggests that
civil society organizations, human rights activists, and legal professionals should work together
to raise awareness and advocate for prisoners' rights in India.
SUGGESTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to conclude we can say that the positions of under trail prisoners are far from satisfaction.
To overcome these issues and to provide a model prison we have to follow certain norms as provided by the judiciary in different cases. Some of the recommendation I would like to suggest
for the protection of rights of prisoners as well as under trials.
● Drastic methods should be adopted so as to ensure speedy trials of under trial prisoners.
● Number of Fast Track Courts need to be established for speedy disposal of matters.
● Special Courts in Jails for conduct of fast trials of under trials. Urgent steps should be
initiated to reduce the delays in bringing prisoners to trial.
● The procedure provided under Cr. P.C. should be altered so as to ensure speedy justice to
under trials.
● To reduce the period of trial the police investigation must be completed within specified
time i.e. sixty or ninety days as the case may be, and investigation report should be
submitted within stipulated tine.
● Under trial prisoners should be timely being produced before the presiding magistrates on
the dates of hearing.
● The possibility of producing prisoners at various stages of investigation and trial, in shifts
should be explored.
● Video conferencing between jails and courts should be enhanced and tried even in district
and Sub jails.
● Number of non bailable offences should be reduced and converted to bailable offences,
Cr.P.C. may be amended accordingly.
● Discretion in awarding bail should be used judicially and not arbitrarily.
● Nature of punishment should be altered; Alternatives to Imprisonment in the form of
community services, release on parole, Restitution to the victim or a compensation order
and other reformative methods should be maximally be exhausted.
● So as to afford greater access and interaction with the family the grounds for awarding
parole should be relaxed.
● Nature of legal aid and legal assistance should be altered such as setting up of Legal Aid
Clinics in Jails, setting-up of Legal Literacy Clubs, and training of Legal Aid to lawyers
and Para Legal Volunteers, legal Literacy Classes for Children etc.
● Legal aid should be made available an accused at the first point of contact with the police Indian judiciary has also recognized this right as basic right for enforcement of fair, human &
efficient criminal judicial system. It is considered to be the foundation of other rights. The concept
of Right to legal aid to under trial prisoners is very important, From the analysis of data collected
and examined we can concludes that, Right to free legal aid which was enriched by including under
article 21 of Indian Constitution as part and parcel of right to fair trial by judiciary as well as
legislators given it wide importance. This right is also available to trial awaiting prisoners.
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS REFERRED
1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, Wadhwa and Co., New Delhi, 1998
2. Batuk Lal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, Orient Publishing Co., New Delhi, 1999
3. P. Ramanatha Aiyar, The Law Lexcicon, Wadhwa and Co., Nagpur, 1987
4. R. V. Kelkar, Criminal Procedure, Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 1998
5. L. B. Curzon, Dictionary of Law, Pitman Publishing, London, 1997
6. D. D. Basu, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ashoka Law House, New Delhi, 2001
7. S. C. Sarkar, The Law of Criminal Procedure, S. C. Sarkar & Sons (P) Ltd., Calcutta, 1975
8. Justice K. D. Shahi, Princep’s Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Delhi
Law House, Delhi, 2000
9. M. R. Mallick, B. B. Mitra on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Kamal Law House,
Calcutta, 1987
10. P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Code of Criminal Procedure, Modern Publishers (India), Lucknow, 1999
11. Shoorvir Tyagi, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 1994
12. Pandit Kamalakar, Human rights and Criminal Justice, Asia Law House, Hyderabad, 2010
13. S.N.Misra, The Code of Criminal Procedure, Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 2013
14. Surender Pal Singh, Petitions For Under trials And Prisoners, Kamal Publishers, New Delhi,
2011
15. Dr. V. Nirmala, Law Relating to Human Rights, Asia Law House, Hyderabad, 2013
16. South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, Handbook of Human rights and Criminal Justice in India, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010
ONLINE DATA RESOURCES
⮚ http://india.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/210469.html
⮚ http://www.panopticon-consulting.org/international-prison-law-and- standards.html
⮚ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoner
⮚ http://euromed-justice.eu/document/un-1985-united-nations-standard-minimum-
⮚ http://euromed-justice.eu/document/un-1985-united-nations-standard-minimum-
⮚ https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/147416NCJRS.pdf
⮚ http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/dbpjvcap/dbpjvcap.html
⮚ https:/www.hrw.org/legacy/advocacy/prisons/stn-nts.htm
⮚ http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/67699/23/23_appendix%206.pdf)
⮚ https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prisoner
⮚ http://nalsa.gov.in/content/nature-free-legal-services
⮚ http://mahaprisons.gov.in/1052/About-Prison-Department
⮚ https://cultural.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/SATARA/law_prison.html
LAWS REFERRED
⮚ Constitution of India
⮚ Criminal Procedure Code
⮚ Civil Procedure Code
⮚ The Prisons Act, 1894
⮚ The Prisoners Act, 1990
⮚ The Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950
⮚ The Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955
⮚ Advocates Act 1961
⮚ Legal Services Authorities Act 1987
⮚ Protection of Human Rights Act 1993
LIST OF REFERRED CASES
1. Charles Shobraj vs. Superintendent, Tihar Jail, AIR 1978, SC 1514
2. M.H. Wadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 1548
3. Khatri & Ors v State of Bihar & Ors AIR 1981 SC 928
4. Sunil Batra (I) vs. Delhi Administration (1998) 7 SCC 392
5. Maneka Gandhi v/s Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
6. Fancis Coralie Mullin v/s The Administrator AIR 1981 SC 746
7. A.R. Antulay v/s R.S. Nayak AIR 1988 SC 1531.
8. Hussainara Khatoon v/s State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 91.
9. Areeparmtil and others v/s State of Bihar 1985 SCC (2) 102
10. Raj Deo Sharma v/s State of Bihar (1998) 7 SCC 507
11. Shaheen Welfare Association v/s Union of India and others (1994)6 SCC 731
12. Sunil Batra v/s Delhi administration 1980 AIR 1579
13. Charles Sobhraj v/s State, 1996 Cri.L.J 3354
14. D.K. Basu v/s State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610
15. Joginder Kumar v/s State of UP and others AIR 1994 SC 1349
16. Prem Shankar Shukla v/s Delhi Administration AIR 1980 SC 1535: 1980 SCC 526
17. Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam 1995 (3) SCR 943
18. ADM Jabalpur v/s Shiv Kant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207
19. Dharambir v/s State of U.P (1979) 3 SCC 645
20. Sheela Barse v/s State of Maharashtra AIR 1983 SC 378/ 1983 SCC 96, 1987 SCC 596
21. Hussainara Khatoon v/s Home secretary Bihar AIR 1976 SC 1360
28. Peoples Union For Democratic Rights V/S Union Of India AIR 1982 SC 1473
.jpeg)
.png)
.jpeg)
){kind=link}