06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Prison and detetion center conditions ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19115]

"Prison conditions were harsh, life-threatening, and did not meet international standards. Prisons were severely overcrowded, and food and medical care inadequate. For example, in June a former inmate of Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai filed a complaint with the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC) alleging that the prison's medical doctor ignored a prisoner suffering from chest pains who subsequently died. As of year's end, the MSHRC was investigating the complaint.    In March an NHRC report indicated that the country's prisons were overcrowded on average by 38.5 percent. According to the NHRC report, the country's prisons had a population of 324,852 persons and an authorized capacity of 234,462. Overcrowded prisons that exceeded the national average included Delhi (231 percent), Jharkhand (155 percent), and Chhattisgarh (125 percent). Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Sikkim, Gujarat, Orissa, Tripura and Andaman and Nicobar islands also exceeded the national average.    [...]

According to one NHRC report, a large proportion of the deaths in judicial custody were from natural causes, in some cases aggravated by poor prison conditions (see section 1.a.). Tuberculosis caused many deaths, as did HIV/AIDS. The NHRC assigned its special rapporteur and chief coordinator of custodial justice to ensure that state prison authorities performed medical check-ups on all inmates. By year's end only a few examinations had been performed.    In an effort to avert suicides in police jails, Mumbai police installed close circuit televisions (CCTVs) in police lock-ups across the city. As of January nearly 25 percent of the 84 police stations had CCTVs.    [...]

While local authorities often attempted to hide custodial killings, the NHRC and the courts investigated those cases brought to their attention and prosecuted some perpetrators. In most cases, the courts awarded monetary compensation of between $400 (Rs 17,600) and $2,200 (Rs 97,000) to the next of kin. NGO sources stated that relatives often had to pay bribes to receive the compensation awarded, and in many cases never received it at all.    By law juveniles must be detained in rehabilitative facilities, although at times they were detained in prison, especially in rural areas. Pretrial detainees were not separated from convicted prisoners.    Some NGOs were allowed to work in prisons, within specific governmental guidelines, but their findings remained largely confidential as a result of agreements made with the government. Although custodial abuse was deeply rooted in police practices, increased press reporting and parliamentary questioning provided evidence of growing public awareness of the problem. The NHRC identified torture and deaths in detention as one of its priority concerns.    "

Document(s): Open document

13.12.2006 - Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

Violations of the prisoners' rights ("SAARC Human Rights Report 2006") [ID 18430]

"Prisons are governed by the state governments. Prison conditions remained deplorable across India. According to the statistics of National Human Rights Commission, there were a total of 3,32,112 prisoners against the total capacity of 2,38,855 prisoners in the 1315 jails of the country as on 31 December 2004. Out of them, 2,32,731 inmates were undertrials, comprising of staggering 70 % of the total inmates. This included 12276 women and 1,570 children. The highest overcrowding rate was reported from Jharkhand with 195.2 % overcrowding, Delhi with 149.7 %, Chattisgarh with 94.5 % and Gujarat with 91.5 % overcrowding.[253] [...]"

Document(s): Open document

28.03.2006 - Source: UK Home Office

Report on general, political and human rights situation (Sikhs, Christians, Muslims and Hindus; land disputes, members of Akali Dal, domestic violence, prison conditions) ("Operation Guidance Note: India") [#48239],  [ID 6400]

"[...]
3.12 Prison Conditions
3.12.1 Claimants may claim that they cannot return to India due to the fact that there is a serious risk that they will be imprisoned on return and that prison conditions in India are so poor as to amount to torture or inhuman treatment or punishment.
3.12.2 Prisons in India are governed under the auspices of the Prisons Act 1894 and the Prisoners Act 1900. State governments and Union Territories are responsible for prison administration. As at mid 2003, it was reported that there were 1,119 prisons including juvenile camps, with a total prison population of 313,635. The official capacity was 229,713 resulting in an occupancy level of 136.5%.92 It has been reported that in 2005 prison conditions were harsh and life threatening. Prisons were reportedly severely overcrowded and the provision of food and medical care was frequently inadequate.93 As a result of the severely overloaded court system thousands of people await trial for periods longer than they would receive if they had been convicted. Some prisoners are held for months or even years before obtaining a trial date. In 2005, human rights organizations reported that 60 to 75 percent of all detainees were in jail awaiting trial, drastically contributing to overcrowding. They also asserted that approximately 65 percent of those detained were found innocent.94
3.12.3 Women are housed separately from men, and by law juveniles must be detained in rehabilitative facilities, however, they are at times detained in prison, especially in rural areas. Pre-trial detainees are not separated from the general prison population.95
3.12.4 One NHRC report notes that a large proportion of deaths in judicial custody were from natural causes, in some cases aggravated by poor prison conditions. The NHRC Special Rapporteur and the Chief Co-ordinator of Custodial Justice have been charged with helping to implement a directive to state prison authorities to perform medical check-upson all inmates. However, by the end of 2004 medical checks were available to only a few inmates. According to a Home Ministry report, nationwide deaths in custody rose from 1,340 in 2002 to 1,462 in 2003.96
3.12.5 NGOs are allowed to work in prisons within specific government guidelines but as a result of agreements with the Government their findings remain largely confidential. A Home Ministry report noted that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) visited 55 detention centres and over 7,000 detainees in 2004 including all acknowledged detention centres in Jammu and Kashmir and all other facilities where Kashmiris were held. However, ICRC were not authorised to visit interrogation or transit centres and did not have access to detention centres in the north-eastern states.97
3.12.6 Conclusion. Whilst prison conditions in India are poor, with overcrowding and the inadequate provision of health care being particular problems, conditions are unlikely to reach the Article 3 threshold. Therefore, even where claimants can demonstrate a real risk of imprisonment on return to India a grant of Humanitarian Protection will not generally be appropriate. Similarly, where the risk of imprisonment is related to one of the five Refugee Convention grounds, a grant of asylum will generally not be appropriate. However, the individual factors of each case should be considered to determine whether detention will cause a particular individual in his particular circumstances to suffer treatment contrary to Article 3, relevant factors being the likely length of detention the likely type of detention facility and the individual’s age and state of health. Where in an individual case treatment does not reach the Article 3 threshold a grant of Humanitarian Protection will be appropriate unless the risk of imprisonment is related to one of the five Refugee Convention grounds in which case a grant of asylum will be appropriate.[...]"

Document(s): Open document

24.03.2006 - Source: BBC News

Orissa: Prison raided by Maoists, freeing at least 35 of their supporters; 2 policemen and 3 rebels killed ("Indian rebels freed in jail raid") [#47595],  [ID 6401]

Document(s): Open document

11.11.2005 - Source: BBC News

Rajasthan: Pakistani journalist who was kept in prison even after he completed local court sentence of 12 years in jail in 2001, released ("India 'to repatriate journalist'") [#39128],  [ID 6402]

Document(s): Open document

30.08.2005 - Source: BBC News

India and Pakistan have decided to free all civilian prisoners whose identities have been established and who have completed their prison terms on 12 September ("Nuclear rivals to free prisoners") [#36034],  [ID 6403]

Document(s): Open document

15.04.2005 - Source: Human Rights Watch

European Convention on Human Rights: The case of Chahal v. United Kingdom (practice of torture, mistreatment of prisoners) ("Still at Risk. Diplomatic Assurances No Safeguard Against Torture") [#31279],  [ID 6404]

"[...][T]he United Nations' Special Rapporteur on Torture has described the practice of torture upon those in police custody [in India] as "endemic" and has complained that inadequate measures are taken to bring those responsible to justice. . .The NHRC [Indian National Human Rights Commission] has also drawn attention to the problems of widespread, often fatal, mistreatment of prisoners and has called for a systematic reform of the police throughout India. . .Although the Court does not doubt the good faith of the Indian Government in providing the assurances mentioned above, it would appear that, despite the efforts of that Government, the NHRC and the Indian courts to bring about reform, the violation of human rights by certain members of the security forces in Punjab and elsewhere in India is a recalcitrant and enduring problem. . .Against this background, the Court is not persuaded that the above assurances would provide Mr. Chahal with an adequate guarantee of safety.[...]"

Document(s): Open document

10.2004 - Source: UK Home Office

Prisons & prison conditions ("Country Report - October 2004") [#28325],  [ID 6405]

"[...]5.52 As reported by The Hindu on 20 April 2004, according to the Prison Statistics Report 2000, prisons in India are still governed by the century old Prisons Act 1894 and the Prisoners Act 1900. [60b] According to the International Centre for Prison Studies, Prison Brief for India, the State governments and Union Territories are responsible for the prison administration. At mid-2003, there were 1,119 prisons including juvenile camps. The total prison population, including pre-trial detainees and remand prisoners at mid-2003 was 313, 635. Official capacity was 229,713 and the occupancy level, 136.5%. [63]

5.53 The same report indicated that the Centre undertook a project on Human Rights and Prison Management in India in collaboration with the Indian Bureau of Police Research and Development, the National Human Rights Commission, the Penal Reform and Justice Association of India and the British Council. The project was funded by the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office. "The aim of the project was to raise awareness of human rights amongst prison officials, and to improve prison management systems with special reference to promoting good practice and gender sensitivity in jail management. Training has been used as a tool for change initiatives in jail management."[...]

[...]5.58 A BBC news report dated 16 December 1999 indicated that in 1999 the Supreme Court of India ordered an investigation into the case of a prisoner who had been awaiting trial for 37 years in West Bengal. Ajay Ghosh had been in custody since 1962, when he was arrested and charged with murdering his brother. Throughout this period, Mr Ghosh was denied a trial on the grounds that he was mentally unsound. [32e] A further BBC news article dated 20 January 2000 reported, the Supreme Court later ordered his transfer to an old-age home. [32f]

5.59 As reported in the Daily Dawn newspaper dated 22 August 2003, in August 2003 the Supreme Court ordered the federal authorities to free incarcerated Pakistani nationals who had already served their full term in prison, some had complained that they had completed their terms as far back as 1992. The court directed the release and deportation of Pakistani prisoners who had served their sentence and were not detained under any orders passed under the Foreigners Act. [41c]

5.60 It was reported in Keesings Record of World Events for June 2003, on 23 June 2003 that Jammu and Kashmir Minister of State for parliamentary affairs Abdul Tehman Veeri had told the State Assembly that there had been 144 alleged custodial killings by local police and Indian security forces since the beginning of the separatist insurgency in the northern state in 1989. This was the first time that the state authorities had acknowledged the problem of deaths in custody.[5q] It was reported by BBC on 9 August 2004 that India and Pakistan had carried out a rare exchange of prisoners of war. Such transfers are unusual - particularly because both sides had earlier denied holding prisoners of war. [...]"

Document(s): Open document

04.2004 - Source: UK Home Office

UK Home Office: Prisons & Prison Conditions ("Country Report - April 2004") [#22427],  [ID 6406]

"5.33 According to a BBC news report dated 16 December 1999, in 1999 the Supreme Court of India ordered an investigation into the case of a prisoner who had been awaiting trial for 37 years in West Bengal. Ajay Ghosh had been in custody since 1962, when he was arrested and charged with murdering his brother. Throughout this period, Mr Ghosh was denied a trial on the grounds that he was mentally unsound. [32e] A
further BBC news article dated 20 January 2000 reported, the Supreme Court later ordered his transfer to an old-age home. [32f]
5.34 As reported in the Daily Dawn newspaper dated 22 August 2003, in August 2003 the Supreme Court ordered the federal authorities to free incarcerated Pakistani nationals who had already served their full term in prison, some had complained that they had completed their terms as far back as 1992. The court directed the release and deportation of Pakistani prisoners who had served their sentence and were not
detained under any orders passed under the Foreigners Act. [41]
5.35 It was reported in Keesings record of World Events for June 2003, on 23 June 2003 that Jammu and Kashmir Minister of State for parliamentary affairs Abdul Tehman Veeri had told the State Assembly that there had been 144 alleged custodial killings by local police and Indian security forces since the beginning of the separatist insurgency
in the northern state in 1989. This was the first time that the state authorities had acknowledged the problem of deaths in custody.[5q]"

Document(s): Open document

23.03.2004 - Source: UN Human Rights Council (formerly UN Commission on Human Rights)

Report on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (English, French and Spanish) ("Civil and political rights, including the questions of: Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; Report of the Special Rapporteur, Theo van Boven; Addendum: Summary of information, including individual cases, transmitted to Governments and replies received [E/CN.4/2004/56/Add.1]") [#23236],  [ID 6407]

Document(s): Open document

25.02.2004 - Source: US Department of State

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003 ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003") [#19765],  [ID 6408]

"The law prohibits torture, and confessions extracted by force generally are inadmissible in court; however, authorities often used torture during interrogations. In other instances, authorities tortured detainees to extort money and sometimes as summary punishment. [...]

The prevalence of torture by police in detention facilities throughout the country was reflected in the number of cases of deaths in police custody (see Section 1.a.). New Delhi's Tihar jail was notorious for the mistreatment of prisoners, with approximately 10 percent of custodial deaths nationwide occurring there. Police and jailers typically assaulted new prisoners for money and personal articles. In addition, police commonly tortured detainees during custodial interrogation. Although police officers were subject to prosecution for such offenses under the Penal Code, the Government often failed to hold them accountable. According to AI, torture usually takes place under two scenarios: In the course of regular criminal investigations, and following unlawful and arbitrary arrests. For example, during criminal investigations, police frequently resorted to torture to extract information from suspects while in custody. [...]

The rape of persons in custody was part of the broader pattern of custodial abuse. NGOs asserted that rape by police, including custodial rape, was more common than NHRC figures indicated. A higher incidence of abuse appeared credible, given other evidence of abusive behavior by police and the likelihood that many rapes were unreported due to a sense of shame and a fear of retribution among victims. However, legal limits placed on the arrest, search, and police custody of women appeared effectively to limit the frequency of rape in custody. [...]

Human rights training for new recruits, middle ranks, and long-serving officers continued at the National Police Academy. The training has raised police awareness of human rights, and there was some decrease in police use of physical force. According to the NHRC, complaints of police harassment and abuse generally declined over a 3 year period. [...]

According to press reports, prison officials used prisoners as domestic servants and sold female prisoners to brothels (see Sections 5, 6.c., and 6.f.). [...]

Prison conditions were harsh and life threatening. Prisons were severely overcrowded, and the provision of food and medical care frequently was inadequate. In July, hundreds of prisoners at the Gopalgary District Jail in Bihar went on hunger strike to protest the poor sanitation, meager food supply, and severe overcrowding.

Severe overcrowding in prisons was common. For example, the Divisional Jail in Bihar had a planned capacity of 55 prisoners but held 753 inmates. Prisons operated above capacity because more than 60 percent of the prison population were persons awaiting hearings (see Section 1.d.). For example, the Government reported that New Delhi's Tihar jail held four times as many prisoners as its capacity at year's end. The Government announced plans to address the overcrowding in prisons by building four additional prisons; however, no further action had been taken by year's end.

The 1,157 deaths in judicial custody reported to the NHRC in March included a large proportion of deaths from natural causes that in some cases were aggravated by poor prison conditions (see Section 1.a.). A study in 2002 conducted by the NHRC found that tuberculosis was the cause of death in most deaths in judicial custody. With the country's high incident of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, prison overcrowding was a serious health threat. There were reports that some prisoners died in custody from HIV-AIDS related illnesses.

Deaths in police custody, which typically occurred within hours or days of initial detention, more clearly implied violent abuse and torture. However, in January 2001, the NHRC requested that the Commission be informed of any custodial death within 2 months and that a post-mortem report, magisterial inquest, and a video of the post-mortem be provided to the NHRC.


NGOs were allowed to work in prisons, within specific governmental guidelines. In Kerala and Karnataka, the state governments selectively cleared NGOs to visit prisons. Although custodial abuse is deeply rooted in police practices, increased press reporting and parliamentary questioning provided evidence of growing public awareness of the problem. The NHRC identified torture and deaths in detention as one of its priority concerns. In February, the Government disclosed plans to supplement state funds to effect prison reforms. Noting that Orissa demonstrated a particular need for assistance, the Home Ministry reported that it had provided $5,000 (233,078 Rs) for the modernization of the prison administration between 1993 and 2002.
Women were housed separately from men. By law, juveniles must be detained in rehabilitative facilities; however, at times they were detained in prison, especially in rural areas. Pretrial detainees were not separated from convicted prisoners.

Human rights NGOs, family members, and lawyers were allowed access to some detention facilities; however, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) visited detention facilities in Jammu and Kashmir (see Section 4). Fifteen states and union territories have authorized the NHRC to conduct surprise check-ups on jails. The NHRC's "Special Rapporteur and Chief Coordinator of Custodial Justice" helped implement its directive to state prison authorities to perform medical check-ups on all inmates. [...]

NGOs and human rights activists alleged that the police often committed human rights violations with impunity and that corruption was pervasive. The NHRC reported that the majority of complaints received were against the police. The Malimuth Committee on Judicial Reform issued a report during the year that proposed some police reform, which has yet to be implemented.

The Constitution provides that detainees have the right to be informed of the grounds for their arrest, to be represented by legal counsel, and, unless held under a preventive detention law, to be arraigned within 24 hours of arrest, at which time the accused must either be remanded for further investigation or released. However, thousands of criminal suspects remained in detention without charge. Detention conditions remained poor. [...]

A program of prison visits by the ICRC was designed in part to help assure communications between detainees and their families. According to the Home Ministry's annual report, the ICRC visited 53 detention centers and over 7 thousand detainees during the year, including all acknowledged detention centers in Jammu and Kashmir, and Kashmiris held elsewhere in the country. However, the ICRC was not authorized to visit interrogation centers or transit centers, nor did it have access to regular detention centers in the northeastern states (see Sections 1.c. and 4). During the year, the ICRC stated that it continued to encounter difficulties in maintaining systematic access to people detained in Jammu and Kashmir.

[...]During the year, some state governments took some measures regarding custodial deaths. In May, the Jammu and Kashmir Human Rights Commission directed the central government to pay $10,000 (500,000 Rs) to the parents of Hilal Ahmed Nasti who died in custody. Following NHRC guidelines, the Government announced plans to address deficiencies in the prison system and establish a committee to draft a model prisons manual. The committee circulated its draft to all state governments/union territories for their input, but has not given a timeline for final publication.

In Bihar, the NHRC recorded 144 custodial deaths in its 2001-2002 reporting period. According to the NHRC, the Bihar government had not adequately responded to NHRC directives and reports addressing police training and accountability. However, the Bihar Inspector General of Prisons reportedly stated that of the 144 cases, only 15 were "unnatural deaths." Human rights sources claimed that the number was higher. The NHRC Chairperson stated that Bihar had the second highest number of human rights violations in the country, but it had not yet formed a State Human Rights Commission. [...]"

Document(s): Open document

06.11.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

Report presenting well-founded reports of the use of arbitrary and illegal detention by Crime Branch police in Ahmedabad in the past year ("India: Abuse of the law in Gujarat: Muslims detained illegally in Ahmedabad") [#17350],  [ID 6409]

"[...] This document presents well-founded reports of the use of arbitrary and illegal detention by Crime Branch police in Ahmedabad in the past year. Evidence is also presented of the torture and ill-treatment of detainees. These human rights violations are being carried out in the context of a large number of arrests of individuals suspected of involvement in a range of alleged conspiracies against the state(1). These alleged conspiracies include the killing of 59 Hindus in Godhra in February 2002 (which sparked communal violence resulting in the deaths of over 2,000 Muslims in the following three months) and subsequent acts of violence which are alleged to have been planned and carried out in retaliation for the killing of Muslims (further information is provided in Section II of this report).

All those formally arrested and charged in relation to these conspiracies are Muslims and almost all have been charged under provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA).(2) Many of these spent periods of time in illegal detention prior to their "formal" arrest. Others reportedly continue to be held indefinitely in illegal detention.

This report focuses on the abuse of arrest and detention procedures in relation to these arrests. It reinforces concerns about the breakdown of the rule of law in relation to the Muslim minority in the state and the increase in human rights violations facilitated by the use of POTA. (3) Amnesty International is also aware of significant concerns about procedures for fair trial raised by advocates acting for some of those detained under POTA. [...]

The courts in Gujarat have to date failed to take any action to prevent or investigate and prosecute most of these illegal actions despite on occasion being confronted with allegations and evidence. The widespread use of incommunicado detention by police against members of the Muslim minority in Ahmedabad is reported to have terrorised the Muslim community who have been too scared to make official complaints.(4) Detailed information on other individuals has been almost impossible to confirm because of the reluctance of relatives to make complaints for fear of retribution preventing lawyers from challenging the illegal detentions in any formal legal proceedings. [...]

Amnesty International understands that only a handful of habeas corpus petitions have been filed on behalf of those illegally detained, because of the overwhelming fear of retribution amongst relatives and even lawyers. However, what is of considerable concern is that the High Court appears to have ignored their complaints thereby denying them their right to have their complaint of torture independently and impartially investigated as set out under Article 13 of the United Nations (UN) Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture). Their cases appear to exemplify the routine flouting (and acceptance of that flouting) of safeguards against torture or ill-treatment by institutions of the criminal justice system. [...]

Amnesty International has received information that scores of Muslim men have been illegally detained for questioning in connection with the killing of former Home Minister Haren Pandya [...]

Amnesty International is extremely concerned at reported comments attributed to the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), that people were regularly detained for questioning for days at a time without being formally arrested or brought before a magistrate. He is reported to have commented: "We do not arrest a person as soon as he is detained. We first question him and after we have established his prima facie involvement in the crime, he is arrested. And we have powers under the CrPC [Code of Criminal Procedure] to call any person for questioning."(12)

This statement indicates that police in Gujarat have been acting contrary to Indian law which governs arrest and detention and Article 21 of the Constitution which denies the deprivation of personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The CrPC does not allow for detention for questioning for days at a time without an individual being brought before a magistrate. This position was reinforced by the Law Commission of India in its 177th Report issued in December 2001 on the Law Relating to Arrest. [...]

The detention of individuals in a police station or unofficial detention centre without recording the fact is a fundamental human rights violation which encourages further abuse in the form of torture. Detainees are effectively "disappeared"(15) and deprived of all rights and law enforcement officials have unfettered power over them. The UN Commission on Human Rights has repeatedly stated that "prolonged incommunicado detention may facilitate the perpetration of torture and can in itself constitute a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."(16) [...]

Amnesty International is concerned at reports that several detainees have been denied access to medical treatment while in detention.

iii. Access to legal representation


W and X were not given access to a lawyer while in police detention - either during the period of illegal detention or following their production in the POTA court. Lawyers filed an application with the lower court to gain access to the two men but were not immediately granted access to them. Amnesty International has been told that it is impossible for lawyers to see detainees held by the Crime Branch and that they are regularly forced to apply to the court for orders to visit clients. However, even when the court has issued orders, Amnesty International understands that police regularly continue to deny lawyers access. This is in clear violation of Indian law and international human rights standards.

Section 51(3) of POTA grants an arrested person the right to meet their legal representative during interrogation (and does not specify that special permission of the court has to be obtained). It is clear that in the case of W and X, as in many others, legal representation was actively denied by police. [...]"

Document(s): Open document
Open document