The Supreme Court of India criticized State governments and Union Territories for their lax approach towards overcrowding in jails. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah highlighted the urgent need for prompt action to address this longstanding issue.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India recently expressed serious concern over the complacent attitude of State governments and Union Territories regarding the persistent issue of overcrowding in jails. A Bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah strongly criticized the lack of prompt action and the evident lethargy in addressing this critical problem.
Lack of Urgency and Sense of Lethargy
The Bench observed-
“We regret to note that State Governments/Union Territory Administrations have not fully grasped the severity of the situation. There appears to be a lack of urgency and a concerning level of lethargy. It is unfortunate that when queried by the Court, counsel for the States often request additional time to provide details, indicating their inability to address the Court without instructions.”
This statement highlights the Court’s frustration with the repeated delays and the lack of proactive measures from the authorities. The Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of overcrowded prisons is not just a logistical concern but a fundamental rights issue, impacting the liberty and dignity of prisoners.
Call for Expeditious Action
In response to the lackadaisical approach, the Court urged all stakeholders, including State governments and Union Territories, to rise to the occasion and fulfill their duties with the necessary urgency. The Bench underscored the importance of expeditious action, stating that the matter is intrinsically linked to the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
ALSO READ: SC Voices Concern Over Crowded Prison Conditions: Calls for Urgent Reform
“Let us reiterate that prisoners are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
-the Bench added, reinforcing the notion that prisoners, despite their incarceration, retain their fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty.
Importance of Prison Reforms
The issue of prison overcrowding in India is a longstanding problem that has severe implications for the health, safety, and rehabilitation of inmates. Overcrowded jails lead to inadequate living conditions, insufficient medical care, and increased chances of violence and unrest among prisoners. These conditions not only violate basic human rights but also hamper the effective rehabilitation of inmates, which is essential for their reintegration into society.
Government’s Role and Responsibility
The Supreme Court’s remarks serve as a reminder to the State governments and Union Territories of their constitutional obligation to ensure humane conditions in prisons. The authorities must take immediate steps to decongest jails, which could include measures such as:
- Expanding Existing Facilities: Constructing additional barracks and cells to accommodate the growing number of inmates.
- Accelerating Judicial Processes: Speeding up trials and reducing the number of undertrial prisoners who constitute a significant portion of the prison population.
- Implementing Alternative Sentencing: Promoting non-custodial sentences for minor offenses, such as community service, probation, and fines.
- Enhancing Rehabilitation Programs: Investing in vocational training, education, and psychological support to aid in the rehabilitation of prisoners.
The Supreme Court of India has expressed severe dissatisfaction with the handling of prison conditions by several state governments, spotlighting issues of overcrowding and inhumane treatment in jail complexes across the country. The case, which was initiated Suo motu by the Court in 2013, aims to address the long-standing concerns surrounding the state of Indian prisons.
ALSO READ: Overcrowding Crisis: SC’s ‘Shocking’ Order for States and UTs to Plan New Jails for 50 Years
On May 14, during a hearing of this critical issue, the Court specifically called out the states of Bihar, Jharkhand, and Kerala for their lackadaisical approach towards the dire situation in their prisons. The Court’s order was firm and reproachful, indicating a clear frustration with the slow pace of reform and lack of serious commitment.
“The Amicus’ Note highlights a degree of laxity in granting approvals for commencement of works… This Court finds the actions of the authorities in the State of Bihar insufficient in demonstrating their commitment to addressing urgent issues that require immediate attention.”
-the Court stated, highlighting a clear dissatisfaction with Bihar’s efforts or lack thereof.
For Jharkhand, the observations were equally stern, noting that the State “does not seem committed to implementing prompt corrective actions.” This remark underscores a pressing need for Jharkhand to reevaluate and enhance its efforts in reforming prison conditions promptly.
Similarly, the Court’s comments on Kerala revealed a significant concern, pointing out that “nothing concrete is forthcoming” regarding follow-up actions on previously detected lapses. This lack of concrete action or progress paints a grim picture of the state’s commitment to rectifying the identified issues within its jails.
The Supreme Court has demanded that these three states, along with others, comply with the pending directives and implement necessary measures on a priority basis to improve the conditions within their respective prison systems. This call for urgent action underscores the critical nature of the situation and the immediate need for tangible progress.
The matter is scheduled for further review on July 11, where the states are expected to present updates on the steps taken following the Court’s scathing remarks.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, serving as the Amicus Curiae in this matter, plays a pivotal role in advising the Court on these complex issues, highlighting the judiciary’s proactive stance in ensuring justice and humane conditions within Indian prisons.
Case Title:
In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons
