‘It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails.
A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.’ – Nelson Mandela
Article 21 of our Constitution ensures the right to life and right to liberty to every citizen of India. The right to life cannot be reduced to a mere biological continuation of human life but ensures the minimum requirements to lead a life of dignity. These minimum requirements to lead a life of dignity include proper food, drinking water, a place to sleep and toilet facilities.
But, always there has been a debate when it comes to ensuring the basic right to life to the prisoners lodged in the prisons (both under trials and convicted). 70 years after our independence from colonial rule and after attaining a literacy rate of 74.04% to date this is a matter of popular debate, which is very unfortunate.
‘The Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of the Prisoners’ also known as the ‘Nelson Mandela Rules’[1] describe in details a model system of penal institution. Though the Rules address the varied legal, social, economic and geographical aspects of different countries of the world but make it mandatory for maintaining the minimum standards to be followed while incarceration to upheld the dignity of human life. The rules mention the basic standards of accommodation, personal hygiene, clothing and bedding, food and medical services to be availed to the prisoners. The Rules also mention about the discipline and punishment to be awarded to the prisoners on any breach of peace but strictly states that no more restriction than is necessary for safe custody and well-ordered community life should be imposed.
A judgment Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration[2] was passed by the Supreme Court of India back in 1979 upholding the basic right to life of the prisoners. People from popular domains are having bizarre perceptions of crimes and criminals. They try to impose the same on the prisoners. But the court is not accustomed to satisfy the public consensus. The court believes that incarceration is a reformative process and not a punitive one. Hence, denying prisoners of their basic human rights is not only against the constitution but also fails the main objective of incarceration i.e. reform.
After conviction, the convict is separated from the nature of the offense s/he has committed and the process of incarceration of the convict is solely reformative. The judgment Asfaq vs The State of Rajasthan[3] passed by the Supreme Court of India states that the nature of the offense will not determine the facility the convict may achieve further on evaluation of his/her reformatory traits. During incarceration, if an authority has restricted the mobility of the prisoners, the onus is on the same authority to ensure the basic right to a dignified life to the prisoners.
But the prison inspections conducted in the states of Bihar and Rajasthan[4] [5]show that the prisoners are living in inhumane conditions devoid of the basic necessities of life and are exploited for undignified labour. This not only closes all the doors and windows for reform of the prisoners but is also a shame for civilized society in the 21st century.
The access to justice in our country with many strata of socioeconomic barriers is not equitable. In this regard, the onus is on the Judiciary to avail equitable justice to all the citizens of our country. This will uphold the egalitarian soul of our country.
A crime committed by an individual has societal conditioning on her/him involved, however heinous it is. Punishing her/him for the crime is no way a solution to curb the crime from society. Imposing harsh punishments has never reduced crime percentage in a universal society. Every time a person is convicted for a crime, the entire society involved walks out free acquitted of all charges and without any onus on the person’s reformative process further. This is very unfortunate for a civilized society and further deepens the inequities prevailing in our society.
A toxic mindset of harsher punishment to the convict is ignorance of our role in the crime that is committed. A few months back a debate was raised by the civil societies of our country demanding Life sentence without parole for rape convicts. This is very unfortunate and further strengthens the regressive society we are dwelling in. This also ignores the role we as a society can play in the reform process of the convicts. Life imprisonment as a whole is the harshest sentence and demanding a life sentence without parole dissolves the humane sensitivity within us.
A reform process neither can be imposed upon someone nor be achieved by severing the ties of the individual with society. Imprisonment without parole where all the ties of the convict with the society are severed, can no way contribute to her/his reform process. As mentioned before that a particular societal conditioning is involved in the occurrence of a crime but then the individual and his family have to face the farce of incarceration. In such time a regular and healthy tie between the convict and his family members becomes mandatory for the greater good of the society. The concept of Parole and furlough helps the convict to maintain ties with his family and society as a whole. These are the facilities achieved by the convicts after they show traits of reform in their behaviour and cannot be determined by the nature of offense the convict is convicted for.
Open prisons are prisons without bars and locks and provide an equitable chance for reform to the inmates during their incarceration. This system not only holds the dignity of the prisoners but will also help them to be responsible citizens of the country. Open Prisons are the best penitentiary model where the prisoners stay with their families and have ample societal exposure strengthening his reform process. The onus of the reform is shared both by the prisoner and the society as a whole contributing to a better society. The prisoners hardly re-offend and hence the sole objective of incarceration is beautifully fulfilled. Open Prisons are also cost-effective and reduce the burden on the public exchequers thus making a viable option for the State Government to pursue.
I believe in a humane and equitable treatment to all the beings and Open Prisons opens a door to it.
I vehemently oppose the death penalty and believe no authoritative hierarchy has the right to kill someone. I endorse a humane, just and equitable system for the prisoners where both the individual and the society will jointly be responsible for reforming the prisoners to further curb injustice from our society.
[1] See Nelson Mandela Rules https://www.un.org/en/events/mandeladay/mandela_rules.shtml
[2] See Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration, 1980, AIR 1579, 1980 SCR (2)557
[3] See Asfaq vs State of Rajasthan, 16803/2017
[4] See Prisons of Bihar http://bslsa.bih.nic.in/prision-report/bihar-prison-report.pdf
[5] See The Closed Prisons of Rajasthan http://www.rlsa.gov.in/pdf/The%20Closed%20Prisoner%20Complete.pdf