Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:20 pm
Time: 9:20 pm
Results for jails (india)
2 results foundAuthor: Mehta, Swati Title: Maharashtra's Abandoned Prisons: A Study of Sub-Jails. Summary: Sub-jails in India form a majority of prisons (60 per cent) and yet one of their distinguishing features is their limited capacity to hold prisoners (13.5 per cent) compared with other jails. The 115 sub-jails in Maharasthra (of a total of 153 prisons), for example, have an authorised capacity of 1,739 in contrast to the remaining 38 prisons with a capacity to house 19,162 prisoners. There is little information available in the public domain about sub-jails and their functioning. Perhaps because they house fewer prisoners, and that too for a short period compared to the central and district jails, neither the media nor civil society organisations have paid attention to these institutions. CHRI and Voluntary Action for Rehabilitation and Development (VARHAD) studied the sub-jails in Maharashtra to assess their condition and the rights of those who are housed in them. Maharashtra not only has the highest number of jails (153)in the country, but also records the highest number of sub-jails (114). For the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) - the only department that publishes national statistics on prisons - the high number of sub-jails in the state reveals “a well organised prison set-up even at the lower formation.” This report aims to provide a broad overview of the sub-jail system in the state and examine whether the NCRB is correct in inferring that the jail system at the “lower formation” is “well organised”. The sub-jails in the state are not administered by the prison department, but by the revenue department. This study examines the impact of placing the management of prisons in the hands of a department (revenue) that is not trained to administer them. It sheds light on the functioning of sub-jails in Maharashtra by focusing on the: rules and regulations applicable to their functioning; kinds of statistics that are available on these jails; administration of sub-jails in the state; oversight mechanisms like the Prison Visiting System; and general conditions in these jails, including food, clothing, basic amenities, sanitation, hygiene, medical facilities and security arrangements. Details: New Delhi: Commonwealth Human Rights Inititaive, 2010. 62p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: India URL: Shelf Number: 119506 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsJails (India)Prisoners |
Author: Karnam, Murati Title: Conditions of Detention in the Prisons of Karnataka: 2007-08 Summary: In the sixty years of Indian independence no specific study on Karnataka’s prison conditions has ever been commissioned by any government. The members of the All India Commission on Prison Reforms (1980-83) visited the state’s prisons but did not devote any chapter or part of their report to prisons in Karnataka. CHRI had, by chance, received favourable signals from the then head of the state’s Prison Department, Mr. S. T. Ramesh regarding the possibility of undertaking a study, and approached him with a proposal to study the prison conditions from the perspective of prison visitors. An earlier experience of conducting a study of prisons revealed that “permission” did not always guarantee full or sufficient access on the ground. Governments in the past had granted CHRI limited permission to study certain aspects of prisons after repeated lobbying and recommendation from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), but the permission itself had several restrictions on the purview of the study. This makes any study extremely limited, leaving very little room for analysis or intervention. CHRI began the study in Karnataka by focusing on the assessment of the day-to-day functioning of the prison visiting system. It was discovered that the system was so politicised that it was nearly dysfunctional. Consequently, CHRI expanded its focus to include other important aspects of civil society and government engagement with the prisons. Gradually, we found we were given access without restrictions although this was unexpected. These factors conditioned the nature and purview of this report and the fluid boundaries in terms of time frame and the subject of investigation reflect the gradual and negotiated access granted as the study progressed. The lesson we learnt was that one needs to adopt a step-by-step engagement approach, which to a large extent, conditions civil society interventions in prisons. The members of the All India Commission on Prison Reforms (1980-83) visited the state’s prisons but did not devote any chapter or part of their report to prisons in Karnataka. CHRI had, by chance, received favourable signals from the then head of the state’s Prison Department, Mr. S. T. Ramesh regarding the possibility of undertaking a study, and approached him with a proposal to study the prison conditions from the perspective of prison visitors. An earlier experience of conducting a study of prisons revealed that “permission” did not always guarantee full or sufficient access on the ground. Governments in the past had granted CHRI limited permission to study certain aspects of prisons after repeated lobbying and recommendation from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), but the permission itself had several restrictions on the purview of the study. This makes any study extremely limited, leaving very little room for analysis or intervention. CHRI began the study in Karnataka by focusing on the assessment of the day-to-day functioning of the prison visiting system. It was discovered that the system was so politicised that it was nearly dysfunctional. Consequently, CHRI expanded its focus to include other important aspects of civil society and government engagement with the prisons. Gradually, we found we were given access without restrictions although this was unexpected. These factors conditioned the nature and purview of this report and the fluid boundaries in terms of time frame and the subject of investigation reflect the gradual and negotiated access granted as the study progressed. The lesson we learnt was that one needs to adopt a step-by-step engagement approach, which to a large extent, conditions civil society interventions in prisons. The members of the All India Commission on Prison Reforms (1980-83) visited the state’s prisons but did not devote any chapter or part of their report to prisons in Karnataka. CHRI had, by chance, received favourable signals from the then head of the state’s Prison Department, Mr. S. T. Ramesh regarding the possibility of undertaking a study, and approached him with a proposal to study the prison conditions from the perspective of prison visitors. An earlier experience of conducting a study of prisons revealed that “permission” did not always guarantee full or sufficient access on the ground. Governments in the past had granted CHRI limited permission to study certain aspects of prisons after repeated lobbying and recommendation from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), but the permission itself had several restrictions on the purview of the study. This makes any study extremely limited, leaving very little room for analysis or intervention. CHRI began the study in Karnataka by focusing on the assessment of the day-to-day functioning of the prison visiting system. It was discovered that the system was so politicised that it was nearly dysfunctional. Consequently, CHRI expanded its focus to include other important aspects of civil society and government engagement with the prisons. Gradually, we found we were given access without restrictions although this was unexpected. These factors conditioned the nature and purview of this report and the fluid boundaries in terms of time frame and the subject of investigation reflect the gradual and negotiated access granted as the study progressed. The lesson we learnt was that one needs to adopt a step-by-step engagement approach, which to a large extent, conditions civil society interventions in prisons. The CHRI team familiarised itself with the basic features of different categories of prisons and jails and tried to study every segment in order to arrive at a comprehensive picture of their functioning. As on 15 January 2008, only 83 out of 99 institutions were functioning, which were under the general supervision of the Prison Department. Of the remaining institutions, the oldest ones were closed owing to defects in the buildings, such as leaking roofs and clogged drainage systems; while the newly built ones were not open due to a shortage of staff. The team visited 39 institutions of various categories. These included all seven central prisons; seven of the eleven functioning district prisons; three of the four district headquarter sub-jails; seven of the 30 taluka sub-jails under the Prison Department; 12 of the 28 taluka sub-jails under the control of the Revenue Department; and one of the two special sub-jails. Details: New Delhi: Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, 2010. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2011 at: http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/prisons/conditions_of_detention_in_the_prisons_of_karnataka.pdf Year: 2010 Country: India URL: http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/prisons/conditions_of_detention_in_the_prisons_of_karnataka.pdf Shelf Number: 120747 Keywords: Correctional Institutions (India)Jails (India)Prisons (India) |