Waiting For Justice

1. Waiting For Justice The State of Undertrials in Rajasthan Prisons

2. 1 Introduction What is to be addressed

3. 18,873 RAJASTHAN’S PRISON POPULATION AS ON 31 MARCH 2013

4. 5,452 13,421 Number of Under trials Number of convictS This Essentially Means That…

5. For Every1Convict,

6. For Every1Convict,there are2Undertrials in Rajasthan Prisons

7. 2 Mandate Government intervention

8. Purpose of the Samiti KEEPING LIBERTY AS A PARAMOUNT VALUE… Established in by the Rajasthan Government 1979 According to the GO, the Samiti should meet EVERY MONTHto review cases of undertrials who… Have completed half or more than prescribed punishment (now S.436A, Cr.P.C.) 1 Are accused of serious offences but have been undertrial for a ‘long period’ of time 2 Have committed such petty offence that there is no need to keep them in judicial custody 3

9. Members of the Samiti Chief Judicial Magistrate Representative of District Magistrate Representative of Superintendent of Police District Probation Officer Office In-Charge, District Prison

10. Letter is sent from Prison to CJM’s office to decide meeting date CJM decides the date and remaining 4 Members are notified about the meeting particulars Lists are prepared by prison staff according to 4 Proformas (see below) for cases to be reviewed by the Samiti How are Samitimeetings conducted Review Meeting is held in the premises of the prison YES NO Is the next meeting date decided by the CJM? Minutes of the Meeting sent to all the Members & Courts for action

11. Proformas Proforma A Death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, completed 90 days under custody , investigations not concluded [S.167(2)(a)(i)Cr.P.C.] Proforma B Term of imprisonment less than 10 years, completed 60 days, investigation not concluded [S.167(2)(ii)Cr.P.C.] Proforma C Completed more than the maximum term of sentence [S.428 Cr.P.C.] Proforma D Non-criminal lunatics for observation for more than 30 days [S. 16 & 23 of Indian Lunacy Act, 1912]

12. 3 Research Our findings

13. Collection of Data TIME PERIOD:JUNE 2009 – JUNE 2010 Study Sample:29 Prisons | 7 Central Jails & 22 District Jails CJ Udaipur, DJ Gangapur city, DJ Jalore, DJ Jhunjhunu

14. Number of Meetings Sri Ganganagar Number of Meetings Held Not a single district conducted all 13 meetings!

15. Number of Meetings

16. Reasons for Meetings not held CJM could not decide on meeting date CJM / Superintendent on leave No Specific Reason Administrative Reasons Meeting not held due to busy schedule 76% did not specify any reason for meetings not held

17. Attendance of Members

18. Issues That Need Attention Irregularity of Meetings – Date of Meeting not decided in advance Proformas not followed by the prison authorities in preparing list of cases Unrealistic Case Review - On an average, 340 (Central Jail) to 177 (District Jails) cases reviewed in single meeting 1 4 No set format or practice to record minutes and quality varied from prison to prison 2 5 No Action-taken Report provided by the respective courts to inform the Samiti about the case-wise progress made 3 6 Information about Samitimeetings not proactively disclosed – No provision to inform undertrial before or after the review

19. Root Cause of Irregularities Formed by the Government but headed by a judicial officer v/s No Authority to monitor its working

20. 4 Conclusion RECOMMENDATIONS

21. Before the Samiti Meeting • Dates must be pre-set at least six months in advance • – ensure proper preparation and maximum attendance • Jail authorities must prepare jail-wise lists with strict adherence to existing proformas and following Additional Proformas: • Serious Offenderspunishable with death or life imprisonment whose trial is continuing over two years • Petty Offenderspunishable with imprisonment up to 2 years • Undertrialscompleted half or more than the maximum term of prescribedpunishment [S.436A, Cr. P.C., 1973] • Juveniles/whose age is contested • Mentally ill [S.328–339, Cr. P.C., 1973] • Persons detained under Chapter VII (Security For Keeping The Peace And Good Behaviour) & S.151, Cr. P.C., 1973 • – remove the possibility of arbitrariness in inclusion of names

22. During the Samiti Meeting • Effectively review cases qualitatively, touching all important aspects of each case • –ensure that injustice is not perpetuated • On request, opportunity for Undertrial to appear in person • – facilitate disclosure of personal obstacles in obtaining bail • Inter-agency issues, like shortage of police escorts, benefit to petty offenders under supervision of Probation Officers, etc., must be discussed • – ensure better coordination among various agencies

23. After the Samiti Meeting • The outcome of the review must be shared with the undertrial concerned • – right to know the status/obstacles to one’s trial • Minutes of the Meeting: • must be detailed and complete & all Samitis must follow a style guide • must indicate detail of each case reviewed • must specify action taken on each case reviewed in the previous meeting and indicate whether persons have been released • must be sent in a timely fashion to all concerned magistrates/judges of the district • must also be sent to the High Court Judge overseeing that district along with any comments from the CJM as necessary • – ensure uniformity in the functioning of Samitis across the State

24. Other Recommendations • Statutory Recognition to AvadhikSamikshaSamiti • Oversight and supervision by High Court Judge overseeing that district • A standard computerised data management system to maintain records of the prisoners in all prisons • List of prisoners under review during a month, proceedings of the Samiti and its records should be proactively put in the public domain under S.4 of the RTI Act

25. We are your RESPONSIBILITY! We NEED you!!

26. Thank you! Prison Reforms Programme, CHRI