A solution to this is the implementation of amended provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Section 436A CrPC proscribes the detention of under-trial prisoners beyond the maximum period of punishment prescribed for the offence that s/he is accused of. It also says that an under-trial prisoner can be considered for release under this provision, if he has completed one-half the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed for the offence he is accused of. Section 436 was also discussed, which proscribes the detention of persons, who are accused of committing bailable offences, beyond 7 days from the date of arrest.

A demonstration of the new software that has been developed by CHRI i.e. EPoD was given which evaluates the period of detention for under-trial prisoners. Some general information viz. name of correctional home, name of prisoners, father’s name, date of admission and offences charged with are required to be entered into the database/excel-sheet. Once this is done, the software analyses the half & maximum period of imprisonment, and also the period of detention already undergone by each under-trial prisoner. The software is a useful tool that can be used in the implementation of these amended provisions of the CrPC.

The session was followed by Session III which focussed on the specific needs and rights of women prisoners. Ms Alka Bhatnagar, Additional Government Advocate, High Court of Rajasthan started the session with a discussion on the reasons for special care and attention for women prisoners. She said that majority of women prisoners are destitute and illiterate and come from poor backgrounds. They have no inkling about their rights. She then outlined the key problems faced by female prisoners.

Majority of prisons do not have proper provisions to house women prisoners, therefore they remain confined to one corner of the prison. There are no female warders, thus the women prisoner is ignored with someone sliding the food from beneath the door, thus resulting in an apparent ‘solitary confinement’ of the women prisoner. Moreover, due to her unawareness she almost has never heard of legal aid and in most cases her family does not want her back. She quoted an incident in Ajmer, wherein two females were picked up by constables and locked up without a female warder/charge.

Due to this they were beaten up. Another problem faced by female under-trial prisoners is lack of female escorts to take them to prison. On this, the delegates informed that this problem is of much lesser magnitude in West Bengal. In majority of cases, escorts are available, and when they are unavailable, the jail authorities provide women warders as escorts.

Moreover, where that is not possible, the jail authorities inform the concerned court, the warrant is sent and stamped by the Magistrate. However, Ms Bhatnagar intervened in this and stated that the practice of routine extension of production date is not a healthy practice.

She stated that it has become routine that the dates are extended for minimum 15 days, which is not what the CrPC mandates. Mr Saxena, Former Inspector General of Prisons, Rajasthan, also supported this argument and elaborated stating that section 167 CrPC merely states ‘minimum of 15 days’, which does not mean that it has to be at least 15 days. This practice needs to be checked for the benefit of the under-trial prisoner. This session was followed by the last session which was solely interactive. Each delegate was requested to share one problem that they face in practice whilst administering their correctional homes.

To resolve these problems a panel was created consisting of Mr BD Sharma, Mr Dibyendyu Sarkar, Mr RK Saxena & Ms Maja Daruwala. They heard the problems and came up with solutions/resolutions for remedying the problems faced by the delegates. The problems and solutions as discussed are given in the next section.