Author: Snehasree Parida, School of Law, Centurion University
Abstract
The Indian penal landscape has been witnessing a paradigm shift from penal custody to social justice through the instrumentality of custodial dignity. The objective of this article is to investigate the burgeoning trends in the Indian judiciary with respect to the extension of Part III rights to prisoners and prison reforms. It reviews the perennial issues that have plagued the prison system, such as the problem of gross overpopulation and severe overincarceration of the impoverished undertrial. It examines the statutory monitoring of 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023, as well as proceedings, SOPs and jurisprudential advisories under the Support to Poor Prisoners Scheme. This article further considers the historical ruling by the Supreme Court in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India, those OCIs as “powerful tools of social reintegration and gender equitable rehabilitation” under Articles 14, 15 and 21 for actualizing the constitutional ideal of custodial dignity. Taking a socio-legal approach, the larger theme of custodial dignity as the intersection of unassailable constitutional mandates is maintained.
To the Point
The institutional ‘control’ of Indian prisons is undergoing a radical transformation. Courts are steadily phasing out the traditional retributive institutional models that were dominant in the pre-independence institutions, and are testing newer rights based and prison reformatory models. One of the ‘most crucial’ aspects of this paradigm shift is the evolving awareness that incarcerating convicted and undertrial prisoners at the prison gate does not dissociate them from their inherent rights secured by the Constitution of India, Articles 14, 15 and 21.2 Judicial growth has been in the direction of combatting the twin evils of ‘overcrowding in prisons and over detention of indigent undertrial prisoners. With the recently passed directions of the Supreme Court of India, modern-day corrections have been trailblazing on the institutional facet by the institutionalization of ‘simultaneity’ of liberalized bail regimes under section 479 of the Nigerian prison (1984, BNSS) 2023 to ‘comprehensive institutional intervention.’ Through the universalized open correctional Institution/ out. The institutions of Indian correction may finally progress into an impermanentarian era with the latest interventions of the Supreme Court of India targeted at reforming the ‘bail’ penalties as well as correctional institutions for prisoners’ benefit.
Use of Legal Jargon
Contemporary Indian Custodial jurisprudence is descended from the broad textual reading of Article 21 that establishes, “any detention of a person’s life that passes the constitutional test of being “right, just and fair”. The Supreme Court has been consistently dismantling centuries-old colonial penal criminologies from accessibility of law (most provisions of the Prisons Act, 1894) from operational constitutionality and/or safeguards that mitigate the ominous threat of the capricious executive and the unquestionable claims of “priority of thought” by routine manacling and solitary confinement. Is visited by the legal safeguards (Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 that, by way of a writ of mandamus, place an obligatory duty on jail superintendents to approach the Court for release of eligible undertrials. An application of the classical doctrine of “presumption of innocence” is traversed by the statutory “half-rule” for all general undertrials and the “handy” “third rule” for first-time offenders. Constitutional directives embodied in the judiciary in Article 39A aim to alleviate “access to justice” deficits by free aid to indigent prisoners. And penologically, to inflict life sentences under section 4 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the CJ has finalised that parole expenditures are proportioned by a parole annuity, and also remission exclusion by the Court upon advent by a judicial empowered period of remission, has expired due to category of life, hence, the Executive under shade of Law should squeeze in time in remission and other delays.
The Proof
The Indian judiciary has always maintained the view that even if a person is put in jail its basic rights are not forfeited. The Supreme Court in In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2016), observed that even if cases of imprisonment the prisoners are also entitled to humane treatment under art 21. The Court expressed concern regarding overcrowding, lack of sanitation facilities, inadequate medical facilities as well as undertrial long custody and ordered the governments to take extensive prison reforms.
Since a few recent cases, this rights-based approach has been established and practiced. Recently, the Supreme Court has litigated on behalf of prisoners with disabilities especially in the case of L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025)where it declared that prisoners with disabilities shall enjoy reasonable accommodation and necessary facilities, providing adequate health care too, and nothing that dignity shall be an invocable constitutional value. In recent discussions, the need to overhaul prison legislation has become a prominent theme.
The document highlights significant reforms in prison legislation, emphasizing the reduction of unnecessary incarceration. Notably, the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) reinforced personal liberty and discouraged routine arrests. During the COVID – 19 pandemic, courts facilitated the temporary release of eligible prisoners to alleviate overcrowding.
Additionally, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sukanya Shanthav. Union of India (2024) declared caste-based segregation and discriminatory practices within prisons unconstitutional, promoting equality and dignity in correctional institutions.
The case laws that we have spoken about is therefore part of a paradigm shift in the approach to imprisonment. From the ‘penal and punishment’ focus on incarceration to the new paradigm which is founded on human rights which is about rehabilitation, human equality and human dignity. And by keeping up this vigilance, they have made sure that constitutional protection is not limited to prison walls and are accessible to all whether they are accused or not.
Case Laws
• In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2016): Emphasized that prisoners retain Art 21 rights. Identified overcrowding, poor sanitation, and health neglect as constitutional crises needing urgent reform.
• L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025): Recognized that the Prisons Act, 1984 is antiquated and must be overhauled. Upheld the right to accessibility and accommodation for disabled prisoners under the RPwD Act, 2016 (Article 21 dimension). Enhanced compensation for deprivation of rights ( ₹5Lakh awarded).
• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014): Laid down arrest guidelines for IPC ≤ 7 years. Terms like “non-arbitrary arrest” and compliance with the CrPC S 41A checklist effectively make bail norms for minor offences.
• Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024): Struck down caste/ religion-based rules in state prison manuals as violative of Art. 14, 15, 17, 21, 23. Directed immediate revision of all prison rules to eliminate discrimination and ordered active court monitoring of reforms.
Conclusion
India’s carceral system is undergoing a vital transition from colonial-era punitive confinement to a rights-based, reformative paradigm. Landmark judicial interventions have firmly established that incarcerated individuals retain their fundamental right to a dignified existence under Article 21 of the Constitution. Operationally, the retrospective enforcement of liberalized pre-trial bail under Section 479 of the BNSS,2023, provides a critical statutory pathway to decompress overcrowded jails. This structural shift is reinforced by the mandated expansion of gender inclusive Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs), which reduce daily pre-prisoner operational expenditures from ₹ 333.12 in closed facilities to just ₹49.60, while actively fostering community reintegration.
To translate these judicial directives into lasting institutional change, state administrations must fully implement the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023. This requires establishing individualized sentence planning, integrating the national e-prisons digital portal, and expanding robust post-release aftercare services. Ultimately, the integrity of a constitutional democracy is measured not by the severity of its punishments, but by its active commitment to preserving the humanity of those within its custody.
FAQs
Q1. How does section 479 of the BNSS, 2023 improve bail opportunities for first-time offenders compared to the old CrPC?
A. U/s 436A of the old CrPC,1973, undertrial prisonerscould be detained until half of the maximum punishment term for their alleged offense; thereafter, they would be released. The BNSS, 2023 introduces a beneficial change in S.479(1), allowing first offenders (without prior criminal records) to be released on personal bond after one-third of the maximum term for their offense has elapsed.
Q2. Does the retrospective application of Section 479 of the BNSS apply to cases registered before July 1, 2024?
A. The Supreme Court of India, in its order dated August 23, 2024, in the case of In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, ruled that S. 479 of the BNSS benefits all undertrial prisoners in pending cases, regardless of the case registration date as of July 1, 2024.
References
1. In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, W.P.(C) No. 406/2013.
2. L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2025) 10 SCC 401.
3. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 2014, 8 SCC 273.
4. Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India 2024 INSC 753.
5. Suhas Chakma v. Union of India 2024 INSC 813.
