Freedom within walls: Case for open prisons

A recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Sukanya Shantha v Union of India, (October 2024) prohibiting caste-based discrimination in prisons has provoked me to pen a few thoughts about prisons and prison reform. This despicable practice has continued in prisons for several decades, but even powerful institutions like the National Human Rights Commission and the National Legal Services Authority have not been able to bring about substantive reforms.

Nobody other than a prisoner will ever know what goes on inside a prison. While inside the confines of the prison, he/she cannot describe the conditions and after release, it is better not to think of those days of being cabined, cribbed and confined.

Prison reforms, therefore, are a daunting task in the absence of necessary information. What do you reform, when you don’t know what’s wrong?

In the recent past, some persons released from custody, whether undertrial prisoners or convicts, have spoken about their experiences in prison, but it’s not about reforms. The reason is simple: they would like to forget the past and have other concerns on their mind — how to reintegrate in society, rebuild their life and so on.

How should reforms be initiated, or, should they? A board of visitors is appointed to hear the grievances of prisoners and suggest remedial measures to the authorities concerned. But remedial measures suggested by the board (if given) are seldom accepted and implemented and, so, improvements in the living conditions in prisons do not take place. The attitude seems to be that the prisoners deserve whatever they are getting, so why make their life any better. The result is that status quo continues.

Recently, two prominent politicians in Delhi were released and they have spoken of their experiences in Tihar Jail in Delhi, probably the largest prison in Asia.

Satyendar Jain was the Home Minister in the Delhi Government and he spent 18 months in Tihar Jail. He says that the environment in the prisons produces criminals rather than acting as a reformatory. The conditions, he says, are such that the prison is actually a punishment centre and desperately needs reforms. He claims to have been in solitary confinement for about five months or so. Notably, the Supreme Court has prohibited solitary confinement and, yet, this exists literally under its nose, if Jain is speaking the truth.

A far more damaging statement was made by Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi who spent 17 months in Tihar Jail. His experience was one of being further imprisoned while in custody. He was under watch the entire day through CCTV cameras — only the washroom was out of bounds for the cameras. He was allowed interaction with only a few people, but they were instructed not to interact with him. Roaming around the prison yard was a no-no. In other words, his liberty was further restricted or curtailed in the prison compound.

What about the emotional or psychological or mental trauma suffered by him? His wife was unwell and continues to be so. In what appears to be a favour, he was allowed to meet her once a week. His son, too, suffered in his absence.

The question is: was his arrest and continued detention really necessary? Was the intention of his detention to traumatise him or his family or both? These are among the many questions that arise.

Kavitha, a politician from Telangana, was detained in Tihar Jail for more than five months, away from her family. How often was she examined by the investigating agency while in custody? Could she not have been examined in her home state?

It seems that the arrests are made and bail opposed because the prosecution knows that conviction may not be the result at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the period spent in confinement is the only ‘punishment’ that the accused will suffer. The goal of the prosecuting agency is to ensure that the accused spends the maximum time in prison. This is clearly contrary to the view of the Supreme Court in various judgments that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

If this is the manner in which prominent citizens are treated, one can only imagine the plight of lakhs of others in custody in various prisons across the country.

A perusal of the 1999 edition of the Prison Statistics published by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reveals that the prison population was 2,81,380 in 1,116 prisons while the 2022 edition shows that it was 5,73,220 in 1,330 prisons across the country Clearly, the figure has more than doubled in the last 25 years even as the number of prisons has increased by about 20 per cent. The increase in prison population certainly does not commensurate with the increase in the number of prisons. This explains the average national occupancy rate of 131 per cent.

Can nothing be done about this?

There is a solution that has been tried and tested in the Sanganer Open Prison in Rajasthan. As the name suggests, it is an open prison.

How does it work?

Convicted prisoners who have consistently conducted themselves without default for a certain number of years are transferred to the open prison and allowed to live with their family there.

I have visited this prison which had about 400 convicted murderers living on the prison campus with their families. They were allowed to go out and search for employment and almost all of them found employment or were self-employed. For example, one of the prisoners runs an autorickshaw. Another (a lady) is working as a data entry operator in a company.

The prison staff informed me that not one person has tried to escape — if they escape and are caught, they would be sent back to the regular prison. Therefore, escaping is a great disincentive.

The open prison embodies, in a sense, the philosophy of rehabilitation and reintegration. Therefore, we should encourage open prisons all over the country.