Skip to main content

Pretrial Detention in India: an Examination of the Causes and Possible Solutions

Abstract

The average rate of pretrial detention in India is 20 per 100,000 of the general population, which is less than half the global average. However, as of 2013, the number of pretrial detainees as a proportion of all prisoners is 67.6 %—over twice the global average. This article seeks to understand the causes of such a high proportion of pretrial detention. Answering this question will help evaluate the present governmental response to the problem of pretrial detention. The article begins by examining the laws and practice of pretrial detention in India and then tries to explain the disjuncture between the two by analysing, first, the role of various functionaries, namely the police, prosecutors, judiciary and prison officials; second, the profile of the pretrial detainees and their (in)ability to post bail and, finally, the (in)effectiveness of the existing legal aid system. It posits that while partly a result of relatively low overall convict populations, the high incidence of corruption; shortage of human, physical and monetary resources and governance and lack of coordination contribute to the high number of pretrial detainees in the prison population in India. It then concludes by describing existing solutions and referencing the practice in Pakistan and Bangladesh, which face similar problems and have similar laws and institutional structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    International Centre for Prison Studies (‘ICPS’), World Prison Brief, < http://www.prisonstudies.org/world-prison-brief>; Roy Walmsley, World Pretrial/Remand Imprisonment List, ICPS, 2nd edn, <http://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/prisonstudies.org/files/resources/downloads/world_pretrial_imprisonment_list_2nd_edition_1.pdf>.

  2. 2.

    National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India2012, Table 17.5; National Crime Records Bureau, Prison Statistics India—2012, Tables 2.1 and 3.2, <http://ncrb.gov.in/PSI-2012/ContTab.htm> (hereinafter, ‘NCRB, Prison Statistics’).

  3. 3.

    Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 310/2005, order of the Supreme Court of India dated 5th September 2014.

  4. 4.

    Somewhat unsurprisingly, criminal codes in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh originate from the same source, Lord Macaulay’s Indian Penal Code of 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1898. Hence, they share concepts of ‘bailable’ and ‘non-bailable’ offences (bail as a right and at the judge’s discretion, respectively); ‘pre-arrest’ bail and ‘cognizable’ and ‘non-cognizable’ offences (the power to arrest without or with a warrant, respectively).

  5. 5.

    Muhammad Waheed, Victims of crime in Pakistan, The 144th International Senior Seminar Participants’ Papers, United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, < http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No81/No81_14PA_Waheed.pdf> at 144.

  6. 6.

    NCRB, Prison Statistics India—2012, at chapters 3–4.

  7. 7.

    Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. The Court clarifies that before authorising the detention, the Magistrates must ‘record [their] own satisfaction’, however brief, although the satisfaction ‘shall never be based on the ipse dixit of the police officer’.

  8. 8.

    State of Rajasthan v Bal Chand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, at para 2.

  9. 9.

    Mantoo Majumdar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1980 SC 846.

  10. 10.

    After 38 years in jail, man starts life at 70, Times of India, 23rd April, 2006, <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/After-38-years-in-jail-man-starts-life-at-70/articleshow/1500343.cms>.

  11. 11.

    RD Upadhyay v State of Andhra Pradesh, 2007 (15) SCC 337.

  12. 12.

    Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

  13. 13.

    Sections 107, 109 and 110, CrPC.

  14. 14.

    Section 116, CrPC.

  15. 15.

    Human Rights Law Network, National Consultation on Prison Legal Aid, April 2013, <http://www.hrln.org/hrln/prisoners-rights/reports/1351-national-consultation-on-prison-legal-aid-13th-a-14th-april-2013-new-delhi.html>.

  16. 16.

    UNDP-MARG, Needs Assessment Study of the Legal Services Authorities in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Odhisha, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh, Government of India (2012), <http://www.in.undp.org/content/dam/india/docs/DG/needs-assessment-study-of-selected-legal-services-authorities.pdf> at 131.

  17. 17.

    As per the Bureau, there is one police officer for 761 persons, against a sanctioned strength of one officer for 568 persons. Conversely, there are 47,557 officers guarding 14,842 protected persons (Bureau of Police and Research and Development 2012; Zee Media Bureau 2013).

  18. 18.

    For further details see Mrinal Satish, Bad Characters, History Sheeters, Budding Goondas and Rowdies: Police Surveillance Files and Intelligence Databases in India, 23(1) Natl. L. School of India Rev. 133, 143 (2010).

  19. 19.

    (1994) 4 SCC 260.

  20. 20.

    Sections 41 and 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which were amended in 2008 and 2005, respectively.

  21. 21.

    Sections 3 and 17 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, [Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates] Act, 1985 (hereinafter, ‘Karnataka Goonda Act’). See <http://altlawforum.org/pedagogy/karnataka-amendments-to-goonda-act/> for the amendment.

  22. 22.

    Section 2 of the Karnataka Goonda Act, 1985.

  23. 23.

    R.K. Saxena, Catalyst for Change: Effect of Prison Visits on Pretrial Detention in India, Open Society Justice Initiative, Spring 2008, <http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/Justice_Initiati.pdf> at 60.

  24. 24.

    See Bureau of Police, Research & Development, Data on Police Organization in India, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2012, <http://bprd.nic.in/showfile.asp?lid=1047>, at 3, 112. See also Zee Media Bureau, Police to people ratio: 3 cops for every VIP but just 1 for 761 commoners, Daily News & Analysis (DNA), 25th August, 2013, <http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-police-to-people-ratio-3-cops-for-every-vip-but-just-1-for-761-commoners-1879695>.

  25. 25.

    Id.

  26. 26.

    However, they provide legal services and opinions to the Central Bureau of Investigation. See UNAFEI, The Relationship of the prosecution with the police and investigative responsibility, 107th International Training Course: Reports of the Course, <http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No53/No53_29RC_Group1.pdf at 309.

  27. 27.

    Sections 436 and 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

  28. 28.

    The Constitution divides matters into union lists, state lists and concurrent lists based on which entity (the centre or the states) has jurisdiction to legislate on those matters. Prisons are on the state list and criminal law on the concurrent list.

  29. 29.

    Stanley Pinto, Amnesty India mulls bail fund to rescue undertrials, The Times of India, 8th January 2014, <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Amnesty-India-mulls-bail-fund-to-rescue-undertrials/articleshow/28528191.cms>.

  30. 30.

    HRLN, supra note 15.

  31. 31.

    A UNDP study on the needs assessment study of various LSAs found that many of the Taluk and District level LSAs lacked telephones, computers, vehicles and support staff (including for accounts). UNDP-MARG, supra note 16, at 131.

  32. 32.

    UNDP-MARG, supra note 16, at 5.

  33. 33.

    UNDP-MARG, supra note 16, at 6, 132.

  34. 34.

    UNDP-MARG, supra note 16, at 131.

  35. 35.

    NJP Implementation Cell, Lahore High Court, <http://lhc.gov.pk/?page_id=3033>.

  36. 36.

    UNDP-MARG, supra note 16.

  37. 37.

    UNDP-MARG, supra note 16, at 118.

  38. 38.

    UNDP-MARG, supra note 16.

  39. 39.

    GIZ, SPSS Project, 2013, <http://www.giz.de/de/downloads/giz2013-en-spps-punjab-prosecution-service.pdf>.

  40. 40.

    Saxena, supra note 23, at 67.

References

  1. Amnesty International (2014). “Karnataka’s undertrials suffer due to faulty prison systems”, 20th July 2014, <http://436a.in/karnatakas-undertrials-suffer-due-to-faulty-prison-systems/>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  2. Baguenard, et al. (2005). Activating the criminal justice system in Bangladesh.

  3. Bhandari, V. (2014). On trial, the criminal justice system, The Indian Express, 25th September 2014, <http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/on-trial-the-criminal-justice-system/>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  4. BMZ (2013). Federal ministry of Germany for economic cooperation and development, “promising practices: on the human rights-based approach in German development cooperation; justice reform: improving the situation of overcrowding in prisons in Bangladesh”. <http://www.institut-fuermenschenrechte.de/uploads/tx_commerce/promising_practices_justice_reform_in_bangladesh.pdf>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  5. Bureau of Police Research & Development (2012). “Data on police organization in India”, Ministry of home affairs, <http://bprd.nic.in/showfile.asp?lid=1047>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  6. Committee on Empowerment of Women (2012–2013). “19th Report on Victims of Sexual Abuse and Trafficking and their Rehabilitation”, Parliament of India, Lok Sabha, <http://www.scribd.com/doc/193331183/VICTIMS-OF-SEXUAL-ABUSE-ANDTRAFFICKING>, at para 2.8. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  7. Express News Service (2013). “SCs, STs form 25 % of population, says Census 2011 data”, The Indian Express, <http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/scs-sts-form-25--of-population-says-census-2011-data/1109988/>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  8. Gandhi, D. (2014). 65 % of prisoners in undertrials, The Hindu, 23rd July 2014, <http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/65-of-prisoners-in-india-are-undertrials/article6238717.ece>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  9. GIZ (2013). “SPSS Project 2013”, <http://www.giz.de/de/downloads/giz2013-en-spps-punjab-prosecution-service.pdf>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  10. Government of India (2001). “Religious composition, Census data”, Census 2001, <http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/India_at_glance/religion.aspx>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  11. Human Rights Law Network (2013). “National consultation on prison legal aid”<http://www.hrln.org/hrln/prisonersrights/reports/1351-national-consultation-on-prison-legal-aid-13th-a-14th-april-2013-new-delhi.html>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  12. Human Rights Watch (2010). “The price of freedom: bail and pretrial detention of low income non felony defendants in New York City”, <http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us1210webwcover_0.pdf>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  13. IMF (International Monetary Fund) (2010). “Pakistan: poverty reduction strategy paper”, <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2010/cr10183.pdf>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  14. Khan, M. S. R. (2007). Poor Policing and Weak Intelligence Gathering. Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies, 10th October 2007, <http://www.ipcs.org/article/india/poor-policing-and-weak-intelligence-gathering-2391.html>. Accessed 3 Aug 2015.

  15. Kelkar, R.V. (2008). Criminal procedure. In K. N. C. Pillai (Ed), 5th edn).

  16. Law Commission of India (1987), “120th Report on manpower planning in the Judiciary: a blueprint”, <http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/101-169/Report120.pdf>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  17. Md. Shariful Islam (2010). “Politics corruption nexus in Bangladesh: an empirical study on the impacts on judicial governance”, asian legal resources centre, <http://www.ahrchk.net/pub/pdf/ALRC-PUB-001-2010-BN-Politics-Corruption.pdf>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  18. NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau) (2012a). Crime in India, government of India.

  19. NCRB (National Crime Records Bureaua) (2012b). Prison statistics India, government of India.

  20. NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau) (2013). Prison statistics India, government of India.

  21. NALSA (National Legal Services Authority) (2010). 1 Newsletter (2010).

  22. NALSA (National Legal Services Authority) (2013). Right to information, <lawmin.nic.in/rti/nalsa-rti.doc>.

  23. NIPSA (Network for Improved Policing in South Asia), Bangladesh, <http://www.nipsa.in/bangladesh>. OSF. (2012). The role of lawyers and paralegals, http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/improving-pretrial-justice-20120416.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  24. OSF (2012). The role of lawyers and paralegals, <http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/improving-pretrialjustice-20120416.pdf>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  25. Pakistan, M. (2013). “A study on criminal law and prosecution system in Pakistan Pakistan”, <<http://www.manzilpakistan.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Law-and-Justice-Study-on-Criminal-Prosecution.pdf>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  26. Pew Research (2012). The global religious landscape: muslims, Pew research religion and public life project (2012), <http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-muslim/>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  27. Pinto, S. (2014). Amnesty India mulls bail fund to rescue undertrials, The times of India, 8th January 2014, <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Amnesty-India-mulls-bail-fund-to-rescue-undertrials/articleshow/28528191.cms>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  28. Planning Commission of India (2011). Report of the working group for the 25 year plan (2012–2017), department of justice, September (2011), < http://planningcommission.gov.in/aboutus/committee/wrkgrp12/wg_law.pdf >. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  29. PTI (2010). 8,000 anti-socials arrested ahead of Ayodhya verdict, The hindustan times, 27th September 2010, <http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bhopal/8-000-anti-socials-arrested-ahead-of-ayodhya-verdict/article1-605286.aspx>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  30. PTI (2014). Lok Sabha Elections 2014: 1.86 lakh persons under preventive arrest ahead of Gujarat polls, economic times, 27th April 2014, <http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-04-27/news/49437673_1_gujarat-polls-state-election-commissioncountry-made-liquor>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  31. Rajasekaran, I. (2014). Alarming act, Frontline, 3rd October 2014. <http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/alarmingact/article6412617.ece>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  32. Riaz, A.(2008). Three fold increase in judges salaries”, The Nation, 17th June 2008, <http://www.nation.com.pk/politics/17-Jun-2008/Threefold-increase-in-judges-salaries>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  33. Sandefur, J., Siddiqi, B., Varvaloucas, A. (2011). Baseline evaluation report, unpublished draft, open society justice initiative.

  34. Satish, M. (2010). Bad characters, history sheeters, budding goondas and rowdies: Police surveillance files and intelligence databases in India”. Natl. L. School of India Rev, 23(1), 133–143.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Saxena, R. K. (2008). Catalyst for change: effect of prison visits on pretrial detention in India, open society justice initiative, <spring.http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/Justice_Initiati.pdf>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  36. Senior Correspondent (2011). Senior civil judge dismissed, notices issued to two others, the news, 11th December 2011, <http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-5-81711-Senior-civil-judge-dismissed-notices-issued-to-two-others>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  37. Singh, J. (2013). Justice is crumbling but no one bothers, the daily pioneer, 17th March 2013, <http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/edit/justice-is-crumbling-but-no-one-bothers.html>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  38. Supreme Court of India (2012). National court management systems: policy and action plan, September 2012, <http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/ncms27092012.pdf>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  39. Supreme Court of India (2013). 8(4) court bews (2013), <http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/courtnews/2013_issue_4.pdf>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  40. Supreme Court of India (2014). Summary: types of matters in supreme court of India as on 01.04.2014, <http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/p_stat/pm01042014.pdf>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  41. Supreme Court of Pakistan (2013a), Meetings of the national judicial (policy making) committee, 23rd November 2013, <http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/page.asp?id=1696>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  42. Supreme Court of Pakistan (2013b), Meetings of the national judicial (Policy Making) committee, 10th December (2013), <http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/page.asp?id=1715>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  43. Times of India (2011). Government funds not used for student welfare: court, the times of India, 9th July 2014, <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Govt-funds-not-used-for-student-welfare-Court/articleshow/9157095.cms?referral=P>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  44. Transparency International (2013a). Global corruption barometer: India, <http://www.transparency.org/gcb2013/country/?country=india>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  45. Transparency International (2013b). Global corruption barometer, data and methodology, <http://www.transparency.org/gcb2013/in_detail>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  46. Transparency International (2013c). Corruption perception index, <https://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  47. Transparency International (2013d). Global corruption barometer, <http://www.transparency.org/gcb2013/countries>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  48. UK Border Agency (2011). Bangladesh: country of origin information report 23rd December 2011, <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310010/Bangladesh_COI_report_2011.pdf>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  49. UNDP-MARG (2012). Needs assessment study of the legal services authorities in the states of Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Odhisha, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh, Government of India”, 132 <http://www.in.undp.org/content/dam/india/docs/DG/needs-assessment-study-of-selected-legal-services-authorities.pdf>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  50. UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime). Criminal justice system resources, crime and criminal justice statistics, <https://www.unodc.org/unodc/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime.html>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  51. United States Institute offor Peace. (2011), <http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/resources/sr266.pdf>, at 6. The population for 2011 is taken as 173.59 million as per UN estimates. This means that the number of police men per 100,000 population is 204.05. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  52. US State Department (2013). Pakistan human rights report, <http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/220614.pdf >, at 17. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  53. Utkarsh Anand (2014). SC: release undertrials who have served half their jail terms, The Indian Express, 5th September 2014, <http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/sc-release-undertrials-who-have-served-half-their-jail-terms/>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  54. Vyawahare, M. (2013). “India’s police force lags much of the world”, New York Times, 16th January 2013, <http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/india-has-one-of-the-lowest-police-population-ratios-in-the-world/>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

  55. Zee Media Bureau (2013). Police to people ratio: 3 cops for every VIP but just 1 for 761 commoners, Daily News & Analysis (DNA), 25th August 2013, <http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-police-to-people-ratio-3-cops-for-every-vip-but-just-1-for-761- commoners-1879695 > . Accessed 28 June 2015.

  56. Zora, P. (2005). Fifty four years in jail without trial: the plight of prison inmates, counter currents, 26th August 2005, <http://www.countercurrents.org/hr-zora260805.htm>. Accessed 28 June 2015.

Cases

  1. Ajeet v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012). ACR 2636 (3) (Allahabad High Court).

  2. All India Judges v Union of India (2002). 4 SCC 247.

  3. Antulay, A. R., Nayak, R. S. (1992). 1 SCC 225.

  4. Kumar, A., v State of Bihar. (2014). 8 SCC 273.

  5. Court on its Own Motion v State (2014). IVAD (Delhi) 429.

  6. Basu, D. K., State of West Bengal (1997). 1 SCC 416.

  7. Saha, H., State of West Bengal (1975). 3 SCC 198.

  8. Mishra, H., State of Uttar Pradesh (2014). 4 SCC 453.

  9. Goswami, I. M., State of Uttaranchal (2007). 12 SCC 17.

  10. Kumar, J., State of Uttar Pradesh (1994). 4 SCC 260.

  11. Kumari, L., State of Uttar Pradesh (2014). 2 SCC 1.

  12. Kasab, M. A., v State of Maharashtra (2012). 9 SCC 234.

  13. Ram, M., v State of Madhya Pradesh (1978). 4 SCC 47.

  14. Mishra, P., Mishra, P. (2005). 3 SCC 143.

  15. Saxena, P. K., Union of India (2008). 9 SCC 685.

  16. Bhasin R. D., State of Maharashtra (2012). 9 SCC 791.

  17. Upadhyay, R. D., v State of Andhra Pradesh (2007). SCC 337.

  18. Mhetre, S. S., v State of Maharashtra (2011). 1 SCC 694.

  19. State of Rajasthan v Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308.

  20. Bafna, S. K., v State of Maharashtra (2014). STPL (Web) 209 SC.

  21. Leima, Y. O. L., v State Of Manipur (2012). 2 SCC 176.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Mr. Martin Schönteich, Dr. Aparna Chandra, Mr. Nauman Asghar and the peer reviewers of this article for their support and assistance. Research for this article was supported in part by the Open Society Internship for Rights and Governance, which is funded and administered by the Open Society Institute (OSI). The opinions expressed herein are the author’s own and do not necessarily express the views of OSI.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vrinda Bhandari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bhandari, V. Pretrial Detention in India: an Examination of the Causes and Possible Solutions. Asian Criminology 11, 83–110 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-015-9218-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Criminal justice
  • Pretrial detention
  • Undertrial
  • Prisons
  • Prisoners
  • South Asia
  • India
  • Pakistan
  • Bangladesh
  • Accused
  • Jail