Unit : 1:

Prison as a system : History and Philosophy

Structure
1.1. Introduction
1.2 Objectives
1.3. Conceptual evolution – Philosophy of Prison
1.4. History of prison Development in International level
1.5. Development of Prison in India prior to independence
1.6. Development of prison in India after independence
1.7. A. Summary
1.8. Terminal Questions
1.9. Answers and Hints
1.10. References & Suggested Readings

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The oldest penal institution is actually the ‘Jail’ which is also commonly called a
‘prison’ in many lands. In the early stage jail functioned as a place for detaining prisoners
awaiting trial and execution of sentence. Getting off to a slow start in the sixteenth century
imprisonment as a form of punishment became the major form of punishment of the nineteenth
century. From nineteenth century onwards and following in the twentieth century, certain
individualized measures of offenders were introduced into prison. Sentences. Thus began
concept of institutional correction.
The penal policy in post-revolutionary America was resolved on the question, how
prisons could be organized to reduce the chance that offenders would repeat their criminal
activity. This approach expressed a definite attitude toward human beings, that they can be
reformed for the better if given the proper opportunity.

1
 The idea of correctional imprisonment had been foreshadowed in Europe as in England
and on the continent imprisonment as a means of reforming character had sometimes been
imposed by religious and secular authorities. The Roman Catholic Church had sometimes
released the prisoner upon showing of repentance. In England the houses of correction was
invented to take care of the widespread vagrancy and idleness that arose when great numbers of
the rural population were forced to vacate their cottages. The idea of prisons as a correctional
and a rehabilitation method was advanced in England in 1778 when parliament authorized the
construction of a “Penitentiary”, whose purpose as stated in the law was “by sobriety,
cleanliness and medical assistance, by a regular series of labour, by solitary confinement during
the intervals of work, and by due religious instructions to preserve and amend the health of the
unhappy offenders, to injure them to habits of industry, to guard them from pernicious company,
and to accustom them to serious reflection and to teach them both the principles and practice of
every Christian and moral duty”. John Howard, the prison reformer who fathered this law,
declared : “ The term penitentiary clearly shows that Parliament had chiefly in view to the
reformation and amendment of t hose to be committed to such places of confinement” (
Sutherland and Cressey, P.485). But Parliament did not proceed to implement the concept of
penitentiary. In America, however, the penitentiary concept was taken seriously enough to be
widely put into practice. Gradually a broad range of programmes have been undertaken by many
countries aimed at rehabilitating the prisoner. In India we get four Acts relating to prisoners such
as Prisons Act, 1894, Prisoners Act, 1900, The Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950 and Prisoners (
Attendance in Courts ) Act, 1955. We have also Jail Code formulated during British Period. In
these laws the provisions relating to corrections and rehabilitation of prisoners are neither
complete nor standard enough so as to apply emerging theories of prisoner’s reform.

1.2 OBJECTIVES
The main objectives behind prison system are:

(i) To send undertrials to a place as ‘safe keeping’;

(ii) To use the imprisonment as a place for reformation and rehabilitation facilities of
the convicted prisoner.

2
 Thus the goal of imprisonment is not only punitive but restorative; in short to make an
offender a non-offender. The U N Standard Minimum Rules also set the objectives of
imprisonment towards socialization of prisoners. The important Rules are stated below:

Rule57. Imprisonment and other measures which result in cutting off an offender from the
outside are affected by the very fact of taking from the person the right of salf –determination
by depriving him of his liberty. Therefore the prison system shall not except as incidental to
justifiable segregation or the maintenance of discipline, aggravate the suffering inherent in
such a situation.

Rule 58. The purpose of justification of a sentence of imprisonment or a similar measure of

deprivation of liberty is ultimately to protect society against crime. This end can only be
achieved if period of imprisonment is used to ensure, so far as possible, that upon his return
to society the offender is not only willing but able to had a law –abiding and self-supporting
life.

Rule 59. To this end the restitution should utilize all the remedial, educational, moral,
spiritual and other forces and forms of assistance which are appropriate and available, and
should seek to apply them according to the individual treatment needs of the prisoners.

Rule 61. The treatment of prisoners should emphasize not their exclusion from the
community, but their continuing part in it. Community agencies should, therefore, be enlisted
wherever possible to assist the staff of the institution in the task of social rehabilitation of the
prisoners. There should be in connection with every institution social workers charged with
the duty of maintaining and improving all desirable relations of a prisoner with his family
and with valuable social agencies. Steps should be taken to safeguard, to minimum extent
compatible with the law and the sentence, the rights relating to civil interests, social security
rights and other social benefits of prisoners.

3
 To achieve the aforesaid objectives the U N General Assembly (Resolution 3452 of 9
December,1975) adopted the Declaration of the Protection of All Persons From Torture and
other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( Art. 8 and 9 ).

1.3 CONCEPTUAL EVOLUTION

Concept in Mughal India

Another pertinent point to note is that during the hey days of Mughal rule in India,
Islamic tenets of criminal law were in force. According to the Encyclopedia of Islam in Muslim
Law. Punishments are classified under four heads as (i) Hadd, (ii) Qisas, (iii) Diya and (iv) Tazir.
Hadd is that punishment which has been specifically defined in the Quran or the Haddis by the
Prophet.. The penalties prescribed for these offences are liquidation, death, cutting of h ands and
feet, and strokes of whip varying from forty strokes to hundred strokes. Qisas means retaliation,
which was of two kinds. Qisas – means retaliation, which was of two kinds. Qisas – fil-nafs or
blood vengeance which was applicable in cases of homicide and the other called Qisas –fil-ma
dun al-nafs applicable in cases which did not prove fatal. If a person committed a willful
murder or inflicted a wound which did not prove fatal, he was liable to Qisas or retaliation. Wali
or next of kin of the slain person, had the right to kill the offender under certain circumstances
and under the supervision of the j udge5. In cases of retaliation short of life, a hand was cut off
for a h and, a foot for a foot, a nose for a nose, and a tooth for a tooth.6. Diya means a sum
extracted for any offence upon the person, in consideration for the claim of Qisas, or retaliation,
not being insisted upon. Tazir, literally means ‘to censor or repel’. In awarding Tazir, the judge
exercised his discretion, consequently, the sentence could be anything from a public reprimand
to whipping or banishment8. Thus, imprisonment was not the most often sought form of
punishment, and j ails were used basically as places for detention of undertrials or nobles and
political offenders.

Concept in European Continent in 18th Century

4
 Macaulay was a very well read, informed and erudite scholar of his time. To comprehend
his ideas fully, it is necessary to have a look at the state of affairs on the European continent and
other progressive nations. Norman Johnston9 remarks, “ Apparently imprisonment was usually a
prelude to execution, banishment or other various forms of punishment. But it was also used in
lieu of these penalties for some political prisoners of high rank, and it was used to coerce
payments of debts owned to the government or individuals.” Max Gruhhut records that the
Prussian General Law of the land, 1794, made imprisonment in various forms the basic method
of the whole penal system.
Concept in America in the 18th century
In the decades between 1780 and 1820,” the development both of coherent philosophies
of imprisonment and characteristic related architecture was taking place in North America,
especially in Pennsylvania. It was no accident that prison reforms blossomed as soon and so
well in this colony.”11 Norman Johnston12 comments,” America with its tradition of hard work
and its chronic labor shortages, could not really tolerate the degree of relative idleness which
Europeans would permit running their prison systems under the Pennsylvania regimen. “ The
U.S.A. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Gaols observed,”
Institutionalization as the primary means of enforcing the customs, mores or laws of a people is a
relatively modern practice. In earlier times, restitutions, exile, and a variety of methods of
corporal and capital punishment, many of them unspeakably barbarous, were used. Confinement
was used for detention only,” adding, “The colonists who came to North America brought with
them the harsh penal codes and practices of their homelands ….. In the Great Law of
Pennsylvania, enacted in 1682, Penn made provisions to eliminate to a large extent the stocks,
pillories, branding iron, and gallows. The Great Law directed : “… that every county within the
province of Pennsylvania and territories there unto belonging shall …. Build or cause to be built
in the most convenient place in each respective county a sufficient house for restraint, labor, and
punishment of all such persons as shall be there unto committed by laws.” Eldestein and Wicks
observe, “ In 1787, confinement replaced public punishment as the principal means of treating
wrong doers ” in America.
Concept in 18th century England
Haynes observes, “ It was in England during the latter part of the eighteenth century and
the first part of the nineteenth that the use of the death penalty reached its climax. In 1780 the

5
penal code of England embraced 240 capital offences and Blackstone mentioned 160 crimes as
punishable by death in his day. It is said that in the reign of Henry VIII, 72,000 executions took
place …. The death penalty was the universal panacea for crime and it was applied to murderers,
thieves and petty offenders indiscriminately ……. In 1717 an Act of Parliament established
transportation to America on a much extended scale. In 1767 another Act was passed for the
more speedy and effectual transportation of offenders …… Just before the Revolution, Great
Britain had 192 ships engaged in the trade, and they were transporting 47,000 annually.” He
comments, “The eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth witnessed in England by
gradual progress the abolition of mutilation, the stocks, the pillory, and of transportation or
banishment, and the restriction within narrow limits of the death penalty and flogging ….
Consequently. For the last seventy – five years, “ prison” and the imposition of fines have been
the usual penalties for law breakers. In case the offenders cannot play the fine, imprisonment
follows by default”. In Howard’s time three – fifths of all inmates of English gaols were
imprisoned for debts. John Howard ( 1726- 1790 ) records, “Many of these prisons were
privately owned. The Duke of Portland owned Chesterfie Gaol which consisted of one room
with a cellar beneath and he received a rent of 18 guineas a year from the keeper. The Duke of
Leeds got £ 24 a year from Halifax Gaol and the Bishop of Durham owned the Country Gaol at
Durham.” Hinde writes that “ In 1814, a committee was appointed and they revealed grounds for
complaint, other than that of overcrowding …. Mr., Newman, the gaoler, stated that a small
addition in the allowance would stop garnish …. Galoers were paid, but out of t heir salaries had
to find wages for their assistants.
Macaulay was fully familiar with Peel’s efforts in 1824 when he “ Introduced a measure
which consolidated many recent recommendations and practices and attempted in a large
measure to standardize penal treatment.” Hinde observes, “ When we reach the year 1835, we
come to a landmark in the history of prisons, one period closes and a new one begins. The period
of unrestricted local enterprise ends and a period of partial government control open. For it was
in this year that an “ Act for effecting greater uniformity of Practice in the Government of
several Prisons in England and Wales; and for appointing Inspectors of Prisons in Great Britain”
became law ….. Thus began a system of supervision of the central government “ over local gaols
and prisons in England.
Conceptual development in India

6
 Fully envisioning the trend of penal thinking and the direction person system was taking
in his mother country, Mcaulay projected the same picture, in his Minutes, as the suggested
approach of the proposed committee on Prison Discipline in India. He argued his case : “ Death
is rarely inflicted in this country at present, and it must certainly be the wish of Government and
of the Law Commission that it should be inflicted more rarely still . The practice of flogging has
been abolished, and we should, I am sure, be most unwilling to revive it. The punishment of
transportation is so expensive to say nothing of other objections that it can be employed only in a
small number of cases. Imprisonment is the punishment to which we must chiefly trust. It will
probably be resorted to in ninety cases out of every hundred.”
What is pertinent to note is that Macaulay’s minute was recorded in 1835, as a
consequence of the Charter Act of 1833 when the British Crown had abolished the East India
Company as a trading corporation. They had proclaimed and owned all the territory, wealth and
revenue that had been collected by the Company, and established an administrative set-up on an
all – India basis, to govern the territorial holds in India. This occurred after 225 years of British
presence in India, as traders. Under the façade of trading activities, the English indulged in
political activities of all shades and grades to gain increasing territorial holds. As early as 1639,
Francis Day acquired a piece of land from the Raja of Chandragiri, who later came to be known
as Madraspatnam. There he built Fort St. George in 1640 for the Company’s factory and also for
the residence of English people employed in the service of the Company. Madraspatnam was the
first township under the control of the English where executive arrangements to provide law and
order and administer civil and Criminal justice arose. Consequently, arose the need for a jail
which was then located within the precincts of Fort. St. George.
On 8th February, 1665, the King of Portugal handed over Bombay in dowry to the King
of England and Humphrey Cook took the possession of Bombay. Thus, the company acquired
sovereign rights over Bombay. In his report of 3rd march 1665 Humphrey Cook wrote, “ I have
ordered a prison to be made to keep all in quietness, obedience and subjection..
In 1698, the British Company purchased the zemindari rights of the three villages –
Calcutta, Sutanati and Govindapur – in Bengal, when”….. the zemindar was responsible not only
for maintaining the peace, but also for the trial of civil and criminal cases, subject to appeal to
the Nawab.”

7
 Thus, we see, that within the first ninety years of their trading in India, at the close of the
seventeenth century, the English and established ‘gaols’ in Madras, Bombay and Calcutta. In
time to come, all the three places grew into independent functioning Presidencies under the
administration and control of an English Governor – in – Council. The Charter of 1667 had “
empowered the. Company to establish Courts of Judicature similar to those established in
England for the proper administration of justice,” specially providing “ that such laws and
regulations should not be repugnant or contrary to, but be as near as possible to the laws of
England.” The factory period of trading corporation, when the above origin and growth of ‘
gaols’ took shape under British influence, extended over two centuries and a quarter. It is an
important period to understand the genesis of Indian Prison System, in an environment where the
Mughal administration of criminal justice was sought to be imposed. There is no publication till
this day, in the field of Criminology that highlights the growth of prisons during 1608- 1833, the
Factory Period under British influence in India. In his Minutes of December, 1835, Macaulay
considered it important to emphasis : “What I would suggest is that a Committee should be
appointed for the purpose of collecting information as to the state of Indian prisons, and of
preparing an improved plan of prison discipline.” … Metcalfe, than acting as Governor General,
readily accepted the suggestion and appointed a Committee, as suggested by Macaulay, under
the Presidentship of the Hon’ble Henry Shakespeare, Member of the Council of India, with T.B.
Macaulay also as a member.
The Committee on Prison Discipline submitted its report on January, 8, 1838, which is a
valuable record of the then prevailing conditions in gaols under the English in India, and one that
suggested a detailed plan for setting up an effective Prison- administration in India. What is
pertinent to note is that the authorities in England rejected the recommendations of the Prison
Discipline Committee, 1838 on grounds of cost.
Despite the non- acceptance of recommendations of the Prison Discipline Committee,
1838 by the British Government, and expressed doubts of the Governor General Lord Auckland
about the success of the recommended plan, the period from 1833 to 1857, is an important one
when major developments took place in the prison set –up and administration in India.
In the middle of the nineteenth century imprisonment became the main form of
punishment. But prisons, nowhere had till then merged as the instrument of carrying out judicial
punishment. Cantor observed “ imprisonment is the modern major method of disposing serious

8
offenders. It is difficult to imagine surrendering this method. It was just as difficult to surrender
the practice of torture in the Middle Ages or public execution for every felony in England. A
brief sketch of the methods of punishment in the past will show how firmly different ages clung
to t hose current practices which to us today appear utterly barbaric ”. He also said that “ the
prison system which we have inherited from the nineteenth century may be as irrational as the
inquisitional tortures of Middle Ages.”

1.4 EARLY STAGE OF MODERN PRISON IN INTERNATIONAL LEVEL

The development of the penitentiary or modern prison is in part a rejection of the
traditional jail. Some historians have found the origins of the penitentiary in the 16th century
English Work Houses where able bodied vagrants were set to work in order to learn habits of
industry. This is said to be an important institutional development towards evolving
rehabilitation where confinement was used for coercive education.
By the eighteenth century, the Work Houses or “ bridewells” had lost their original
purpose because judges increasingly resorted to corporal punishments or transportation to the
colonies for vagrants.
The sixteenth century Protestants impulse to banish idleness and beggary provided a
second precursor to the penitentiary in the Amsterdam Rest house and Skin House founded in
1596 and 1597 respectively. Through these work Houses the Magistrates sought to establish “
houses of discipline ” where inmates could be put to work in order to learn industrious habits.
Thus, Amsterdam provided a model of European house of correction where new classes of
deviants and convicts sentenced to force public labours. In practice, these state workshops were
used not as reformatories but used as places where a diverse population of unfortunate
ingredients. Were coerced into hard labour. But neither the English Bridewells nor the
continental work houses served the purposes of the penitentiary.
Ideological Origins of Reformation in Prison.
During the eighteenth century mainly two prison reformers, namely, John Howard ( 1726
-1790) and Jeremy Bentham ( 1748-1832) shared both a revulsion against traditional
punishment and expressed that institutions could be built that would rehabilitate criminals and

9
prevent crime. Their detailed proposals shaped the rise of the penitentiary by providing an
essential belief that properly designed prisons might transform felon into productive citizens.
Social Origins of the Institutional Treatment.
The emergence of the penitentiary as centre of criminal justice systems was part of a
broader process of institution building that included the rise of factory, free elementary schools,
general hospitals, mental hospitals, orphanages and other asylums for the dependent and deviant.
The prison reformers attempted for social betterment by rehabilitating the prisoners by
remodeling the society for better public mutilations and executions seemed to have lost their
efficacy as a deterrent to crime.
In 1779, British Parliament abolished branding and amended the laws relating to
transportation, imprisonment and other punishments. It is argued that these changes were
responses to fundamental alterations in class relations by the 18th Century.
Landlords and other property owners abandoned many of their former roles in local
communities. Law –makers realized that in a free labour market state would have to assume the
disciplinary functions formerly performed by private/ individuals and property owners. Now
categories of crime became conspicuous reflecting the inadequacy of customary mechanism of
social control.
The relationship between economic changes and criminal justice was complex. The new
changes in social relations of production associated with the rise of capitalism greatly influenced
the way the people thought about social conflicts. The new methods of punishments became
necessary when cottage industries were replaced by factories and lease – holders were losing t
heir places to day labourers. In design and regiment the new penitentiaries resembled factories.
But the analogy between prison and factory is imperfect because programmes of correction
required rule – bound routines that limited the use of market incentives in prison. It proved
impossible to reconcile economic efficiency with competing goals of secured custody and
rehabilitation.

Reformation of prisoners in England in 18th century

During late 18th century many institutions attempted to test John Howard’s vision
through practical trial. In 1792, England’s Gloucestershire county, under the leadership of a

10
Quaker justice of the peace, George Onesiphorous Paul, made a massive investment in a prison
that had separate sections for those awaiting trial for minor offenders, and for convicted felons.
The whole correctional regiments in the penitentiary house were a part of an integrated
effort to isolate the prisoners from kin and community and to impose a kind of behavioral
therapy.

Reformation process in U.S.A

In the United States, Quakers inspired by Howard launched into a successful campaign to
revise the Pennsylvania Criminal Court by replacing capital and corporal punishment. With
imprisonment as the normal sentence for felons. In 1792, part of Philadelphia jail was converted
into a penitentiary with 36 solitary confinement cells for the most serious offenders.
But Gloucestershire and Philadelphia experiments failed in reshaping the prisoners
through solitary confinements. The system of penitentiaries failed by overcrowding,
underfeeding and the necessity of maintaining control over inmates. “Reformator5y ideas were
said to be most influential in legitimating the search for more effective means of controlling
crime in a society being transformed by capitalist development and needing humanitarian
alternatives to the gallows. The fundamental question of the possibility of an effective science of
penology is historically moved because the development of each penitentiary has been shaped
by contending and contradictory interests.”
The penitentiary organization, namely, Auburn prison established in 1870 developed the
prison system which was a practical compromise of the principles of solitude and constant
Inspection with the need of prison industry to make profits. Penal reform in New York began in
1790s as an imitation of that in Pennsylvania. The disastrous experiments with complete solitary
confinement at Auburn ended in wholesale pardoning of inmates after a series of self –
mutilations and suicide attempts. Thus, the Pennsylvania penal system rejected the model of
redemption through solitude and developed a harsh group –work discipline combined with
solitary confinement at night. These experiments of Pennsylvania separate system and New York
of congregate system of Auburn prison have been interpreted as proof of American confidence

11
that environment shaped character. In theory, criminals are products of disorderly homes and
communities and habits of discipline acquired in well ordered prisons would return the prisoners
as responsible citizens.
The most serious form of political interferences with prison discipline came from
organized labours campaign to prohibit prison industries that competed with free workers.
Prison industries became a scraperboard for the small capitalists and skilled craftsmen whose
economic status was being undermined by technological innovations. Any profitable activity
that could be organized in a penitentiary was sure to have already attracted private
entrepreneurs.
By the mid -19th Century, New York penitentiaries were over – crowded, scandal ridden
custodial institutions. Thus, institutions created as means of rehabilitating criminals and as
humane alternative to traditional punishment saved very few from vice or unnecessary
sufferings. In spite of this fact, the penitentiaries continued to be built because they shielded the
public from the hard core recidivist criminals.
At the turns of the 20th century, the institutional incarceration or the penitentiary idea
to reform the criminals with the presumption that human beings to be profoundly social creatures
capable of adjustment with social activities, such as, athletics / sports, vocational education,
recreation and participation in government activities has failed and not working well.
In spite of revived ideology of reformation of prisoners in the custodial institutions, in
practice, these reforms or rehabilitating plans did not fulfill the expectations of those who though
to implement a system of individualized treatment. At the end of this century although many new
prisons were being built t many strategies and plans h ad been adopted for reformation of the
prisoners, but all these efforts failed to keep pace with the need of the prisoners to be
rehabilitated or reformed to lead a normal life. Existing rehabilitative programmes rarely worked
effectively and /or efficiently.

1.5 CONCEPT OF PRISON REFORM IN INDIA PRIOR TO INDEPENDENCE

Early Period

12
 The penology has its roots in ancient India also. It developed under the connotation of
danda –niti which literally mans principle of punishment. Manu, the great law – giver of India,
emphasized that Danda was created as a derivative of Dharma. Nigam expounds the view that “
While criminal science or criminology is a modern growth in the West, it would be heartening to
know that it was a fully developed subject of study in our country even before the dawn of the
Christian era”. Thus, criminology of Danda – niti is not a new science in our country. It is as old
as the Srutis. As a result, we have an abundance of literature on Dandaniti or criminology
contained in our Dharmasastras, such as, Vedas, Smritisastras, Dharmasastras, Kautilya’s
Arthasastra, In the works of Bana, we find indirect reference to crimes, rigorous imprisonment,
amputation of limbs and execution. The smriti writers were aware of the complexity of human
nature and they paid due attention to the individuality of an offender, his antecedents and
capacity punishment should be given. A man for light offence. Kautilya advised the king to
award punishment which should neither be mild nor severe. In Brahmbaibrata Purana, Lord
Mahadeva told Brahma that if people commit offence, it is the duty of pious man to forgive him.
During Maurya rulers, Particularly in the reign of Ashoka ( 269- 232 B.C), a new official known
as Dharma – mahamantra was appointed who was to look after among other matters the
prisoners in Jail.
Thus , the first phase of ancient civilization in India when Dharma was supreme, the
offender was shown maximum tolerance, but that was gradually ousted by political authority of
the King in the middle ages.

Medieval period

An examination of the Muslim law which was prevalent in the medieval period in India,
it is revealed that imprisonment was not recognized as a form of punishment. It was Abul Fazal,
one of the learned ministers of Akbar, who gave an interpretation that the Muslim rulers could
award imprisonment to offenders and we found that a number of forts were used to confine
offenders. Badayunm records that on the birth of Prince Salim, the Emperor set out with all
expedition on Agrah, and in the excess of his joy ordered all prisoners to be released. In
December, 1590, it was reported to Akbar that Shahbaz Khan had come from Swad without
orders, for which act he was committed to prison for three years.

13
 Observation of Saran in this regard is worth – mentioning. “The regular j ails for
confining convicts were of two classes which, for the sake of convenience, I shall call ‘A’ class
and ‘B’ class. The ‘A’ class j ails are meant for imprisoning men of high rank, high government
officials and princes, that is to say, they were meant for the custody of the royalty and
aristocracy. The ‘B’ class jails were meant for criminals of ordinary status, that is, for the rank
and file. For the royalty and novelty, several fortresses situated in different parts of the country
were used as a prison for both classes of prisoners, although there were separate apartments for
them inside the for ” In short, Akbar’s introduction of imprisonment in his administration of
criminal justice was a great departure from the Muslim law. It could be looked upon as the seeds
of peno-correctional philosophy anywhere in the world at that time. This system of imprisonment
found a very favourable climate and flourished under Zahangir under the name, ‘Justice’ with
high sensitivity to humanness, compassion, Kindness and noble qualities of head and heart.
Zahangir was followed by Shahzahan who himself spent his last eight years at a captive of his
son in the Agra Fort. At the time of Shajhzan the offenders could not get generosity. From the
administration and any reform in prison administration. Shahzahan’s rule was usurped by his son
Aurangzeb. When crowd gathered near his red fort to protest against inequity and discrimination,
the imperial elephants were ordered out to crush them.
In the medieval period, the administration of criminal justice deteriorates “ where the
offender is deprived of his liberty, and is physically forced on the point of pain and torture to
show obedience to the dictates of the States. Trusts in the person of the offender disappears.
Hardly any faith is left in the power of dharma or religion, to reclaim the offender to social ways
of life.
Late Medieval Period
Contemporaneous with growth of Mughal Empire on Indian Soil, the Portuguese were
actively developing their navigational activity which was to be treated as prelude of western
powers into India. Portugal was under the sway Catholic Church with zealous fanaticism. During
the late medieval period, the Christian church had granted asylum or sanctuary to fugitives and
criminals. These canon courts were traditionally forbidden to shed blood. Therefore, they
adopted the Christian theme of purification through sufferings. The wrongdoers were subjected
to reclusion and even solitary cellular confinement, not as punishment alone, but a way of
providing conditions under which puritans would most likely occur.

14
British Period
In 1600, the Portugese constructed the Church prison at. Goa, which consisted of a
complex of buildings, each two- storied high, containing a total of nearly two hundred separate
cells. A corridor ran the length of the buildings with seven or eight cells on each side. The cells
were about 10 X 10 ft. with a small, barred, unglazed window in the vaulted ceiling, dark,
somewhat lower and smaller.
At the same time, a company was incorporated in England by a Charter of Queen
Elizabeth on December, 31,1600, which is known as East India Company. By 1623, the East
India Company had been authorized by the King of England for the purposes of establishing
trading in India, and gradually the Company officers had been empowered to exercise legal
control over the Company’s British servants who were to be governed by English rule as
prevalent in England. The Company gradually established its own policy and judicial system.
The King’s Charter of 1661 extended the jurisdiction of the Company officers to include Indians
and others living in the settlement and authorized the Governor and Council in each Presidency
to judge all persons belonging .to the said government and company or that shall live under
them, in all cases whether civil or criminal.
A report of 3rd March 1665, submitted by Hamprey Cook recorded the following
observations :
“ I have Enordered a prison to be made to keep all in quietness, obedience and subjection,
this people generally been hereditigious ” In this period the jails were much in demand and
remained as poorly administered as in Mughal regime.
The Charter Act of 1726 proved the Company’s jurisdiction on a more satisfactory
basis. On 15th August 1772, the Committee of Circuit with Warren Hastings as President drew up
a plan, which was adopted by the Committee on 21st August for administration of Criminal
justice. There was no centralized system of prisons and these existed as an adjunct at the
Foujdari Thana and the Criminal court of the district.
Misra writes, “ A person was attached to each Fouzdari Thana as well as to the Criminal
Court of the district under the superintendence of the Fouzdar. The Fouzdari prison was
intended only for a temporary stay of the prisoner who was to be p resented to the Court and then
put in the criminal jail after his commitment. As superintendent of prisons, the Fouzdar was to

15
maintain regular accounts of prisoners for the running of and supervision of the Daroga or
Judge of the Court.”
“ The Jail appears to have been formerly, any building in the vicinity of the Court of
justice, which could commercially be hired or appropriate for the purpose. The Fouzdari gaols,
were all sorts of makeshift arrangements made with no genuine concern for the life and living
of the inmates. “ sometimes Government found it more convenient to rent them to build a god.
The one at Dacca was hired for Rs. 30.00 a month and a Divani goal at Murshidabad for Rs.
15.00.”
Aspinall Observed : “Until 1790 the Prisons being a part of the Fouzdari Deparment were
under the general management Naib-Nazim and his subordinates, the Judges of the Fouzdari
Courts ….. The Judges were in the habit of confining accused persons for long periods before
bringing them to trial, their subordinates, the Thanadars, frequently imprisoned people without
any show of legality. It was also reported in the Calcutta goal which had ever been the charge of
the British in June, 1785, the rooms in these goals were kneedeeped in water, the floors being on
a lower level then the surrounding lands; many of the inmates were naked. Many gaols were
terribly overcrowded and criminals and debtors, men and women, were often confined in the
same building and even in the same room. The Regulation of December 3,1790, transferred the
management and control of the jails from Indian hands to European hands and the Magistrate
was put in-charge of his jail in district. Commenting upon the jails, Cornwallis said that
humanity cried for a remedy and he told the Court of Directors in December 1792 that he had
resolved to rebuild all the jails in the province, in such a style that health and morals as well as
safety of the prisoners would be secured.
As a consequence, the Regulation IX of 1793 came into being which provided prison as
a system and emerged as the first comprehensive codification of rules for the management of
jails, which also specified the objective thereof. The prison by that time was well recognized,
separately indented institution for the detention of persons awaiting trial before the court, and
also for keeping persons from guilty and awarded a sentence by the court under the management
of the Collector and Magistrate of the District.
Under the East India Company Rule, by this time, there were 143 Civil jails, 75 criminal
jails and 68 mixed jails, with a total accommodation for 75,100 had been built in Bengal, North
West Provinces, Madras and Bombay.

16
 In 1835, Macaulay had adversely commented upon the conditions prevailing in jails in
the following words :
“ Whatever I hear about the Indian prison satisfies me that their discipline is very
defective …. Hundreds of the worst and most desperate criminals are assembled there. They are
collected in one great body. They are, therefore, quite able when t heir passions are inflamed to
overpower any resistance3 with t hose who are placed over them can offe4r to their fury. It is
only a few months since they murdered the Superintending Magistrate. At present, no visitor can
enter without danger and this evil exists at the very spot at which the greatest quality of
European intelligence and power is concentrated at the seat of the Government, under the very
eyes of this Supreme authority…. When such is the state of the jail at the Presidency, we can
hardly suppose that a good system is followed in the Moffusil. And all I can learn on the subject
leads me to a believe that the prisons of India generally require a great improvement….. what I
would suggest is that a Committee should be appointed for the purpose of collecting information
as to the state of Indian prisons and of preparing an improved plan of prison discipline.
On the recommendation of Lord Macaulay, The Governor General in Council on January
2, 1836, appointed a committee of which Macaulay was a member. This committee submitted its
report in 1837, in which it several criticized the prison system. The 1838 Committee observed
the following in describing the horrid conditions of Indian jails at that period which is worth
mentioning :
“151 . On the whole, generally the care that is taken of the physical conditions of these
unfortunate men in the great essentials of cleanliness, attention to the sick, and the
provision of food and clothing, appears to us to be highly honorable to the Government
of British India…..”
152. As it appears to us, that which has elsewhere been deemed the first step of prison reform
has now not to be taken in India… What was in England the second stage of prison
reform seems to be nearly the present state of prison discipline in India. The physical
condition of the prisoner has been looked into but nothing more, and the consequence
here, as in England, have been that a prison, without being the less demoralizing, is not a
very unpleasant place of residence ….
153. The mixture of debtors with criminals which in some places still exists in England, and
which appeared universal in North America, is unknown in any gaol in India …….. The

17
 mixture of the two sexes in Indian prisons is unknown and in general, the separation of
tried and untried prisoners is at least as complete in India as in other countries.
The committee also expressed : “ We are not sanguine in the hope that we shall
be able to affect any material reform in the moral character of convicts.”
The committee further observed:
271. Several officers have recommended the education of prisoners, that is to say, they have
instructed them in reading, writing and ciphering. Such a system would involve a very
heavy expense and we must say that there are no other 56,000 in India when we do not
think more deserving of education at the public charge, than 56,000 criminals in gaols.
That any part of that very small sum which the state has hitherto been able to expend
upon the instructions of the people should be consumed teaching the worst class of
people in the community, the class would be least likely to turn their instruction to good
account, and the class who least deserve public favour is a proposition which we cannot
approve.
R.C. Majmder and Kalikinkar Dutta commenting upon the jail system of India
during East India Company ( 1818 – 1857) observed : “ The early Indian Jail System
was, like English prototype, unsanitary, demoralizing and non – deterrent.” The earliest
attempt for prison reform was made by the Regulation Act, 1834, at the initiative of
Macaulay. No change for the better was introduced until the passing of an Act in 1855,
which provided for the appointment of Inspector General of Prisons in each Presidency,
and the passing of Act VII of 1856, by which “the judges of the Sadar Foujdari Adalat
were relieved of the charge of jails.”
During British regime take over ( 1858 – 1947)
1857 witnessed the most floozy and tragic event of Indian History. The revolt of
1857-58 had an impact upon British Administration in India. The gradual evolution of an
efficient system of administration is one of the most remarkable phases of the history of
British rule at that time. As a result, there is no doubt that the administration reached a
high degree of efficiency in the second half of the nineteenth century. A highly efficient
and awake system of government was developing at that time for providing an improved
Law, Order and Justice including a well defined prison structure and policy. During this
period three Law Commissions were appointed towards developing uniform substantive

18
 law and legal system in India. In August 1860,Government of India appointed a
Commission to investigate into the police administration for increasing its efficiency
and reducing its high expenditure. The recommendations of this commission were
embodied in the Police Act of 1861.
As regards administration of jails no improvement was effected till the position
was reviewed by the Second Prison Committee appointed by Sir Lawrence, on 3rd March,
1864. The Governor General in the minutes (dt. 3.3.1964), recorded the following
observations regarding state of prison administration during the period as under:
1. “The subjects of Jail Discipline and the condition of Prisoners in India appears to be a
question which calls for earnest consideration at the present time.
2. A period of twenty –six years has elapsed since the Prison Committee appointed by Lord
William. submitted t heir Report in which the evils of the then existing system of jail
management as fearlessly exposed, and certain reforms recommended and carried out,
but it is generally admitted that the full measure of improvement contemplated by Lord
Bentinck, and to which the Government was pledged by a legislative enactment (
Regulation II of 1834 ) has never been carried out.
3. Although much good has been effected by the appointment of Inspectors of Prisons in the
different Presidencies of Provinces, and though doubtless there has been amelioration of
the condition of prisoners of all classes in the country, especially as regards food and
clothing, yet still little progress has been made either towards the improvement of the
prisoners or the prevention of crime, while the loss of life amongst all cases of those
confined in jails continues, year after year, to be very great, amounting at present to 7
percent.
4. When this death rate is compared with the mortality in the jails in England, which is less
than one percent, it will be at once seen in how many cases the sentence of imprisonment
in India becomes virtually one of capital punishment and it seems on this ground above
that the inquiry is forced upon us, as to what steps should be taken to reduce the great
mortality which for exceeds that amongst other classes of the population.
Accordingly, the Second All India Jail Committee was appointed to minimize the
high death rates in India Prisons and for consideration of related other aspects of j ail
administration. The Committee recorded that during 1854 -64 not less than 46,309 deaths

19
 h ad occurred inside prisons. Some of the important recommendations of the 1864
Committee Report were as follows:
i) They fixed a minimum space for each prisoner in jail, viz. 54 superficial feet and 640
cubic feet per prisoner ;
ii) They recommended improvement in the diet, clothing, and bedding and insisted upon
regular medical inspection of prisoners;
iii) They recommended employment of medical officers to be in charge of central prisons
and district jails;
iv) That every central jail should have cellular accommodation for 15 percent of its
population;
v) That juveniles should be kept separate from other adult prisoners and they should be
given education;
vi) That a logical principle be developed in putting to labour prisoners sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment as follows :
“ That there should be three descriptions of labour :
1) hard ;
2) medium ;
3) light;
That proportion of each allotted to a prisoner, should be regulated to the length of his
sentence after the following Table 2.1:
TABLE 2.1
Year Hard Medium Light
Up to 3 years 18 months 18 months 6 months
Up to 4 years 2 years 18 months 6 months
Up to 5 Years 2 ½ years 2 years 2 Years
Up to 6 years 2 ½ years 2 ½ years 1 year
Up to 7 years 3 years 3 years 1 year
vii) That education may be a reward or a punishment according to the character of the
prisoner to whom it is accorded, and education may be used as a means of prison
discipline, but on no account lead to any relaxation of sentence.

20
 Twelve years later a conference of experts held in Calcutta in January 1877
where another inquiry into prison administration was initiated. It may be noted that by
1888 five separate enactments had been passed in different States of India governing the
management of prisons, namely:
(1) An Act for the better Control of Prisons within the Presidency of Bombay
( 1856);
(2) An Act for the Regulation of jails in the City and Presidency of Bombay and
Enforcement of Discipline therein ( 1864);
(3) An Act for the Regulation of J ails and Enforcement of Discipline ( Bengal, 1864);
(4) Madras Jails Act ( 1869); and
(5) Prisons Act, 1870 made by the Governor General in Council.
These Acts differed inter se on various important points regarding Prison
administration. Therefore, the Calcutta Conference proposed enactment of a prison
law which could secure uniform prison system throughout the country and as such a
draft Bill was prepared but the matter of passing on a legislation was postponed .
In 1888-89, the Government of India appointed another Committee to examine
jail administration with a view to examine into the actual carrying out of those
principles and to endeavour to produce greatest uniformity on practices throughout
India. On 9th October 1888, His Excellency the Governor General in Council in a
Resolution on the Administration of J ails in British India resolved the following :
“The administration of jails with respect to economy, sanitation and discipline
has for many years received the careful attention of the Governor General in
Council. Three Commissions ( in 1834, 1864, and 1877) have under the orders of
the Government of India, considered and reported upon the general principles
which ought to be observed in the management of Indian jail. There is, on the part
of the Governor General in Council, no wish to reconsider the principles so laid
down, but an examination of the statistics of jails in the different provinces and
even of prisons in the same province shows that great diversity of practice exists in
carrying the principles into effect. The Governor General in Council is not to be
understood as advocating absolute uniformity of administration in all provinces in
connection with jail administration. He admits that local circumstances must

21
always give rise to divergences of practice, but an examination of the provincial
reports for some years satisfies him that the divergences in regard to the cost of
maintaining prisoners, in regard to their sanitary condition and in regard to
discipline, points to the existence of defects which it is desirable to remove. There
being no longer any doubt regarding principle and the question being one of
practices, it appears to His Excellency in Council that improvement can be best
effected by means of a careful and thorough examination by experts on the sport
into the causes which operate in certain provinces and certain jails to produce, e.g. a
variation in the death rate ranging from 11 to 72 per mile of average strength , a
variation in the cost of maintenance of prisoners per head ranging from Rs. 44-11-7
to Rs. 91-2-10, and a variation in the ratios per cent of punishment for offences
against jail discipline ranging from 33 to 328.
The Committee of 1888 framed elaborate rules for prison administration and
recommended separation of undertrial prisoners, classification of prisoners into
casual and habitual, building of hospital in each jail and also recommended for
proper training of jail officials.
On the basis of the recommendation of the J ail Committee of 1888, a
consolidated Prison Bill was prepared. The committee’s recommendations were
specially examined by another conference of Experts on Jail Management from all
provinces which was held at Calcutta in 1892. The Draft Prison Bill was circulated
to all local governments on March 25, 1893, for their observations and, thereafter, it
was presented to the Governor General’s Council. Thus came into being the Prison
Act, 1894, which is still the current law governing administration of prisons in
India.
The next All India Committee on prison administration was the Indian Jail
Committee, 1919 of which Sir Alexander G. Carclew was the Chairman. The
Committee assembled in London for its first meeting and visited penal institutions
in England, Scotland, U.S.A., Japan, Philippines and Hong Kong and then
undertook a thorough tour in India. They submitted a valuable report comprising
more than 500 pages which contained information on matters both of principle and

22
 practice of prison policy, administration and reform. The following extracts of the
report may be mentioned hereunder:
“ The Indian Prisons have made notable advances, as we have said, in the material
aspects of administration, health, food, labour and the like. Possibly, the influence
of the Report of 1838 has to this day not been exhausted. Whether this be so or not,
it is certain the Indian Prison Administration has somewhat lagged behind on the
reformative side of prison work. It has failed so far to regard the prisoner as an
individual and has conceived of him rather as a unit in the jail administrative
machinery. It has a little lost sight of the effect which humanizing and civilizing
influences might have on the mind of the individual prisoner and has focused its
attention on his material well – being, his diet, health and labour. Little attention
has been paid to the possibility of moral or intellectual improvement. In
consequence, while the results of the Indian prison treatment are admitted generally
to be deterrent, they are not generally regarded as reformatory. Witness after
witness, from almost every Province in Indian jails do not exercise a good or
healthy influence on their in- mates, that they tend to harden if not degrade, and that
most men come out of prison worse than they went in. We do not all endorse this
view but in so far as there is truth in it is a result we convinced, not of the men but
the system.
In more than a 500 Pages document, Chapter XI, which deals with
‘Reformatory Influences in Prisons’ cover only 14 pages and the subject is limited
to following five items only, viz.:
i) Remission to Prisoner ;
ii) Gratuities to Prisoners in Prisons;
iii) Interview and Letters;
iv) Education, Prison Libraries and supply of Books and Periodicals; and
v) Religions and Moral Instruction and Religions observances in Prisons.
But except for the system of gratuities to prisoners, all other items were already
existed and the committee merely suggested partial modifications. Nevertheless, it should
be noted that it was the first time in the history of prison administration in India that ‘

23
 reformation’ and ‘rehabilitation’ of prisoners were identified as the objectives of prison
administration.
To conclude it may be said that Indian J ails Committee 1919 -20 marks the end
of an era of administration of jails by the Government of India, Act, 1919, the prison
administration fell within the powers of Provincial Government. After Government of
India Act, 1919, the Provincial Government. After Government of India Act, 1919, the
Provincial Governments were charged with duties in respect of administration of justice
and jails. To discuss the state of affairs of prisons in India during 1920 to 1947 we must
note the political situation at that time. The non- cooperation movement gathered
momentum in 1921. Majumdar writes : “ As there were nearly 30,000 political prisoners,
the j ails lost its terror, and imprisonment became a badge honour, and later a passport
for a seat in the legislature or parliament, was a phenomenon, unique in history, not seen
in any other part of the world.
Pandit Nehru who guided the Freedom Movement in many ways and himself
suffered imprisonment for long- terms wrote in 1934 from Allahabad : “ Thus it is
obvious that political prisoners must expect progressively bad treatment. In 1930 -31 , the
treatment was worse –off in goal than a non – political convict. Every effort is often
made to harass him upto apologizing or at least to make him thoroughly frightened of
prison…
An Indian Prison is after all a replica of the larger India. What counts is the
objective – is it human welfare or just the working of a machine, or preservation of
vested interests ? Why are punishments given as society’s or government’s revenge, or
with the object of reforming
After the transfer of the subject of jail to the Provincial Governments under the
1919 acts, some Committees at the provincial level had examined the jail system in the
respective province , such as, Report of the e United Province Jails Inquiry Committee,
1929. The Committee examined “ Reformatory Influences Inside the jail” in a separate
chapter and recommended the following for the well behaved convicts :
i) Increase in the award of remissions;
ii) Some cash allowance;
iii) Smoking and guru;

24
iv) Better hair net;
v) Use of shoes;
vi) A hand fan during summers and rains;
vii) Increased letter facilities for interviews;
viii) Special food on festival days ;
ix) Compulsory education to juveniles and adults upto the age of 25 years;
x) Increase of library facilities; and
xi) Appointment of paid agency for imparting religions and moral instruction.
In United Provinces after the Government of India, Act, 1935 which provided the provincial
autonomy, two other committees were constituted, namely, Experts Committee on Jail
Reforms, 1938 and United Provinces Jail Reforms Committee, 1946.

1.6 DEVELOPMENT OF PRISON REFORM IN INDIA AFTER INDEPENDENCE

After Independence in 1951, the Government of India requested the United

Nations, under the Technical Assistance Programme, to lend an expert in Criminology
and Correctional Administration for training a batch of jail officers and to a d vise the
Government of India for furthering development of correctional administration in India.
Dr. Walter C. Reckless, and expert of the U.N.O., arrived in India on October 21, 1951.
In his report he recorded the scope of the mission :
“Although the mission was designed primarily for the training of jail officers in
progressive methods of jail administration, a secondary aspect of the mission, namely, the
stimulation of local and national interest in the newer approaches to the treatment of adult
and juvenile offenders has looked very large.

With this end in view Dr. Reckless’s Report have some valuable recommendations, both
National and State Level, for improving correctional administration in India, particularly
of jail administration, some of which could be summarized as under:
National Level

25
 i) An advisory Bureau of Correctional Administration should be established at the
Central Government immediately so that the states could be helped in the
development of their correctional programmes;
ii) The Government of India should consider the need for specialized technical assistance
in this field;
iii) Fellowships in the correctional field to prepare competent persons to fill higher
positions, e.g. Inspector General of Prisons and his Deputies;
iv) The Central Government should encourage the development of Professional
conferences of the superior staff members; and.
v) An All India conference of persons working in the correctional field, both adults and
juveniles.
State Level
i) Establishment of whole time revising boards for selection of prisoners for mature
release;
ii) Revision of jail manual, with greater responsibility on the superintendent and staff
members for constructive programmes for Prisoners;
iii) Superior staff of a j ail to have training for their work;
iv) The larger state3s should develop integrated departments of correctional
administration under one Minister, including Jails, Borstals, Revising Boards,
Probation and After Care.
v) Professional individualized services and handling of the prisoners by specialist like
Supervisor of Education, Vocational Guide, Recreation Officer, Clinical
Psychologists, Therapeutic Psychiatrist, etc.
vi) Special institution for training.
Almost at the same time the Government of India called a Conference (
Eighth) of the Inspector General of Prisons at Bombay from 11 to 13 March, 1952.
On the recommendations of that Conference the Government of India asked the
Government of Bombay to set-up a Committee and take up the revision of Jail
Manual and the Central act relating to prisons. The Committee took its first meeting
in June 1957 at Bombay followed by twelve other sittings and visted to twenty – eight
correctional institutions. The Committee prepared a Model Prison Manual and its

26
Report which was circulated to all the State Governments, but till 1980 only four
States, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Maharashtra had revised
their jail manuals in accordance with the Model Prison Manual.
The Government of India constituted a Working Group in 1972 to examine
measures for streamlining and improving the jail administration and conditions of
living in the prisons. The Working Group observed :
“ The prison administration in the country is generally in a depressing state,
convicts and undertrials are lodged in the same institutions throughout the country.
Adults, adolescents, juveniles, women and lunatics are3 also generally confined in
common institutions and there is a serious lack of separate institutions for these
various categories of prisoners. Partly due to the fact that service of specialists has
not been mobilized, we do not find any evidence of any effort for the individualized
treatment of offenders. Probation and other correctional services are scarce and
ineffective. There is little coordination between the prison and correctional services.
It is obvious that the entire system calls for a thorough overhaul and many- Pronged
reforms.
The Group also emphasized the need of a national Policy on Prisons. It also
suggested the inclusion of prison administration in the Five Year Plan and
amendment of the Indian Constitution to include the subject of prisons, and allied
institutions in the Concurrent List. The Seventh Finance Commission in its Report in
1978 acknowledged the facts that jails had been neglected far too long.
With this background and large scale criticism of the prison administration due
to inhuman treatment of the prison personnel and unsatisfactory living conditions and
prolonged detention of undertrial prisoners the Government of India appointed an All
India Committee on J ail Reforms in 1980 with Mr. Justice ( Retired) A.N. Mulla as
Chairman. The Committee in 1983 submitted a 511 pages report to the Government
of India. With a strong recommendation of a national Policy in Prisons. Meanwhile,
the Eighth Finance Commission submitted its Report in 1984 which recommended
support central assistance for improvement of existing infrastructure of the prisons.
Thereafter, the national Human Rights Commission (NHRC) after acquainted
with problem of prisoners in the prisons in India in general took initiation to

27
formulate a national prison law by consolidation the existing prisons law framed
during British period more than two hundred years back. A draft Bill ( INDIAN
PRISONS BILL, 1995- proposed) was circulated to all the State Governments in
India during February 1999 regarding formulation of comprehensive law in Prisons.
The NHRC had submitted its recommended bill for adoption by the Government of
India which is still under consideration of the Law Ministry.
However, in the meantime the West Bengal legislative Assembly passed “The
West Bengal Correctional Service3s Act, 1992”, the first of its kind in India
Characterizing prison administration as correctional services accepting reformation of
prisoners as the object of prisons law.

1.7 A SUMMARY
In the early stage of modern prison in the 16th century English Work Houses
were set-up where able bodied vagrants were kept to work in order to habits of
industry and thereby confinement was use for coercive education towards evolving
rehabilitation. But neither the English Bridewells nor Work Houses served the
purposes of the penitentiary.
In the 18th century mainly two prison reformers, namely, John Howard (1726-
1790) and Jeremy Bentham ( 1746- 1832) postulated that institutions could be built
that would rehabilitate criminals and prevent crime. Howard advocated for solitary
confinement and planned for better prison food, clothing and hygiene as programme
to reset minds of the convicts towards reformation. To the u utilitarian Bentham
prison conditions varied from institution to institution and can high became socially
inefficient and thus immoral also. He had expressed his faith that criminals could be
rehabilitated through perfectly planned discipline. Towards the end of 18th century the
whole correctional regiments in the penitentiary house was a part of integrated effort
to isolate the prisoners from kin and community and to impose a kind of behavioural
therapy.
The criminologists as well as sociologists who believe in the theory of
reformation looked crime as deviant behaviour. The Central thesis of this theoretical
approach is that deviance is a result of negative social control and that deviant

28
behaviour can be changed by socialization process. The basis of socialization
approach is formed by the three important theoretical elements. These are the cultural
transmission the anomic and the culture conflict.
It is argued that in the 19th century new changes in social relations of production
associated with the rise of capitalism greatly influenced the way the people thought
about social conflicts and the inadequacy of customary mechanism of social control.
New methods of punishments became necessary when cottage industries were
replaced by factories and lease – holders were losing their places to day labourers. In
design and regiment the new penitentiaries resembled factories. But programs of
correction required rule bound routines that limited the use of market incentives in
prison.
In the 20th century, the system of penitentiaries failed by over- crowding, under-
feeding and lack of control over inmates. The fundamental question of the possibility
of an effective science of penology is, therefore, moved the criminologists and the
sociologists, namely, A. Kohen, Thorsten Sellin, Cavan, Shaw & Mackay,
Sutherland, Mertons, Cohen, Cloward & Ohlin, Walter Miller and others.
At the turns of 20th century, the penitentiary or the institutional incarceration idea
to reform the convicts with the presumption that human beings are social creatures
capable of adjustment with social activities such as vocational training, education,
recreation, etc. has failed and did not fulfill the expectations of the system of
individualized treatment. The existing efforts and strategies for reformation of
prisoner, therefore, need to be reformulated to make the rehabilitation and
correctional programmes more efficient and effective.

1.8 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. What are the early conspectus in England and America towards development of
modern prison system?
2. Discuss about the growth of Prison System in India during British Period with
special reference to legislations passed during the period.

29
 3. “ In the history of prison … the unrestricted local enterprise ends and a period
of partial government control opens”- Explain.
4. Narrate in brief the concept of reformation of offenders in early Classical
literature of India.
5. Discuss the recommendations of 1772 Committee of Circuit on Jail reforms
presided by Warren Hastings.
6. Give an outline of various recommendations made by various Committees
towards prison reform in India after independence.
7. Write True or False of the following statements:
i. In Islamic law Hadd prescribed discretionary punishment by the Judge.
ii. Qisas in Mohammadan law authorized retaliation by the victim or his
family members.
iii. The Macaulay Committee on Prison described a hurried conditions of
Indian Jails in 1883.
iv. Government of India appointed an All India Committee on Jail Reform
in 1980 with Mr. Justice V.R. Krisna Iyer as Chairman.
v. Pennsylvania Jail is the first Jail in the world.

1.9 ANSWERS HINTS

Q. 1. Reign of Henry VIII - Act of Parliament ,1717 – John Howard’s Records(1726-

1790)- US National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals-
Pennsylvania Prison.
Q 2. The Charter of 1668- Courts of Judicature- Jails during Factory period (1608-
1833)- Peel’s effort 1824- The Charter Act1833- Macaulay Committee report – Prisons
Act 1894, Prisoners Act,1900.
Q. 3. Danda in ancient India as reflected in Dharmasastras ,such as, Vedas,
Smritiwriters, Kautilya’s Arthasastra, Puranas – seeds of concept of reformation of
offenders.

30
Q4. Warren Hastings as President drew up a plan,1772- Fouzdari prison in the district-
until 1790 Prison being a part of the Fouzdari Department under the general
management of Naib-Nazim and his subordinate- Calcutta ‘goal’ in 1785.

Q. 5. W. C. Reckless Report 1951- National Bureau of Correctional Administration-

Govt . of India Working Group in 1972 to streamlining and improving conditions of
prison- All India Committee on Jail Reforms1980- Eighth Finance Commission
recommendation- Krishna Iyer Committee on Women Prisoners- National Human
Rights Commission draft Indian Prison Bill 1995.

1.10 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

1. Ahmed Siddique , Criminology: Problems and Perspectives, Eastern Book

Company, Lucknow
2. J.P.S Sirohi, Criminal Justice Administration, Allahabad Law Agency
3. Khadish (ed.) Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice
4. N.K. Chakrabarti,1997 Administration of Criminal Justice: The Correctional
Services , Deep & Deep Publications, New Delhi

31