Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:34 am
Time: 3:34 am
Results for pretrial detention (india)
2 results foundAuthor: Bharadwaj, Priti Title: Liberty at the Cost of Innocence: A Report on Jail Adalats in India Summary: The most striking characteristic of the Indian prisons is its high under-trial population. India stands at number 14 in the list of 195 countries across the world with the highest number of pre-trial detainees. More than 65 per cent of the prison inmates in India are awaiting trial. The accused can be released on bail if they or a person known to them executes a bond that guarantees their presence at trial. In some cases, bail may be denied if there are cogent reasons to believe that the accused may tamper with evidence or commit other offences while on bail. However, all persons in detention must be tried within a reasonable time period to avoid unnecessary hardship on those who are innocent and yet imprisoned. Policy makers in India have recognised the magnitude of the problem of high percentage of under-trial population in prisons. The legislature and the judiciary have both stepped in to ensure that the bail regime is liberalised, but the practice remains far removed from the intent. Disposal of cases still takes a long time. In fact so much systemic dysfunction has piled up that there is a growing justification for adopting “short-cut” mechanisms – that also dilute the ‘due process rights’ – so that the system can be seen to be functioning. Fast track courts, plea-bargaining, jail adalats are some of the institutionalised examples of this. Others include proposed ideas to allow police to record confessions, reduce the burden of proof from ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to the ‘subjective satisfaction’ of the judge. Translated literally as prison court, jail adalats see judges holding courts in prisons to dispose off cases of “petty” offenders who are willing to admit guilt. Devised as a strategy to deal with overcrowding and high under-trial population, jail adalats have not been able to address the problem. In fact, many argue that they have themselves become a part of the problem. Jail adalats have received repeated and consistent endorsement from Chief Justices8 of the Supreme Court and the High Courts as well as high powered committees set up by the judiciary. This alone makes a study of the mechanism useful. But combined with both, the complete lack of documentation on the subject and inconsistent procedure and practices, the study is particularly relevant. This study was undertaken to examine how the process is carried out in different states. One of the primary aims of the study was to identify good practices of holding jail adalats and examine whether these could be adopted in other states. This was based on the assumption that even though jail adalats are not the best way to reduce the number of under-trial prisoners, they can be used in the interim period while broader systemic criminal justice reforms are underway. It was assumed that though short on technical procedure, these adalats are perhaps a just way to deal with “petty ” offenders who, if willing to admit guilt, can be released from the prisons after recording a conviction. However, having conducted the study, these assumptions have been reconsidered (as shown by the findings in the report). This report seeks to encourage a debate on the use of short-cut mechanisms in the criminal justice system like the jail adalats. It brings to the fore, the problems that these hastily thought out “solutions” give rise to. The target audience for this report includes the prison and judicial officers who arrange and hold these adalats; the political leaders who may be induced into thinking that these adalats should be given statutory recognition without any further debate; other state agencies like the human rights commissions which recommend their use; and the civil society. Details: New Delhi: Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, 2009. 83p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: India URL: Shelf Number: 119444 Keywords: BailCorrectionsJailsPretrial Detention (India) |
Author: Bharadwaj, Priti Title: Pre-trial Detention and Access to Justice in Orissa Summary: Under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, prisons come under the State List. These custodial institutions are governed by the Prisons Act of 1894 and the rules prepared by the state governments and the governments of the union territories. Each state has its own prison manual with detailed rules for administration and management, regulating every aspect of prison life, both for prisoners as well as prison staff. India has 3,76,396 prisoners in its 1,276 prisons. Of these prisoners, only 31.9 per cent have been proved guilty. The remaining 68.1 per cent are undertrials, detained but innocent in the eyes of the law. Orissa has the ninth highest prison population in the country with 15,368 prisoners. The undertrial population towers at 72 per cent which is higher than the average undertrial population of India. Undertrial prisoners are accused for offences ranging from petty offences such as ticket-less railway travel to higher gravity offences such as murder. “The primary reason for incarcerating people presumed to be innocent, therefore lies in the requirement to ensure the availability of the accused to meet the criminal charges against them.” They are among the most vulnerable sections in the prisons, whose right to liberty has been curtailed before their conviction. With imprisonment, a radical transformation comes over a prisoner, which can be described as prisonisation. He loses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses personal possessions. He has no personal relationships. Psychological problems result from loss of freedom, status, possessions, dignity and autonomy of personal life. Most undertrial prisoners are first-time offenders and their initial encounter with the harsh realities of our justice delivery system makes them disconcerted. It leaves an indelible mark not only on the prisoner’s personal and professional life, but also on those dependent on him/her. Since they are oblivious of their fundamental rights, it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that the inmates are made aware of their rights and the process of the delivery of justice. The Prison Reforms Programme of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) has established its presence in various states, such as Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, to name a few. This study is our first intervention in Orissa and hence it is intended to be a focused one. CHRI commenced this study to assess the implementation of Sections 436 and 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 for the release of those undertrial prisoners who have been detained for an undue length of time. The study also aims to examine whether the prisons in Orissa house undertrial prisoners under the Preventive Detention Sections 107, 109 and 110 of the CrPC. It further seeks to identify the existing systemic provisions which, if revived, could facilitate the implementation of the above mentioned CrPC amendments. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) defines an undertrial prisoner as “a person kept in prison (judicial custody) while the charges against him are being tried”. It also defines another category – detenues as those “in prison on the orders of competent authority under the relevant preventive detention law”. For the purposes of this study, undertrial prisoners comprise both these categories and denote all those un-convicted prisoners, who have been detained in prison during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for the offences they are accused to have committed. The study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase it focused primarily on those undertrial prisoners who would fall under the purview of Sections 436 and 436A of the CrPC as well as those under the Preventive Sections across two circle jails. On completion of the first phase, we felt the need to expand the scope of the study to include other types of prisons. To substantiate our findings and to be able to generalise it to the rest of the prisons in the state, CHRI designed Phase II of the study. In Phase II, we expanded our study to cover several other districts and obtained data from all categories of prisons, viz. circle jails, district jails, sub-jails, special jails and special sub-jails. Details: New Delhi: Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, 2010. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 31, 2011 at: http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/prisons/pre_trial_detention_&atj_in_orissa.pdf Year: 2010 Country: India URL: http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/prisons/pre_trial_detention_&atj_in_orissa.pdf Shelf Number: 123183 Keywords: Pretrial Detention (India)Preventive DetentionPrisonersPrisons |