Model Prison Act 2023

Why in News?

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has prepared the ‘Model Prisons Act 2023’ that will replace a British-era law, (the Prisons Act of 1894), to overhaul the prison administration that will focus on the reformation and rehabilitation of inmates.

 

“The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” ―Fyodor Dostoevsky

 

About the Model Prisons Act 2023:

• The act will replace the current 130-year-old law i.e., Prisons Act, 1894 which mainly focuses on keeping criminals in custody and enforcing discipline and order in prisons, with no provision for reform and rehabilitation.
• The Model Prisons Act, 2023 aims to address the gaps in the existing Prisons Act by providing guidance on the use of technology in prison management, making provisions for parole, furlough, and remission to prisoners to encourage good conduct, special provisions for women and transgender inmates, and a focus on the reformation and rehabilitation of inmates.

Salient features of the Act:

• Provision for security assessment and segregation of prisoners, individual sentence planning.
• Grievance redressal, prison development board, attitudinal change towards prisoners.
• Provision of separate accommodation for women prisoners, transgender, etc.
• Provision for use of technology in prison administration with a view to bring transparency in prison administration.
• Provision for video conferencing with courts, scientific and technological interventions in prisons, etc.
• Provision of punishment for prisoners and jail staff for use of prohibited items like mobile phones etc. in jails.
• Provision regarding establishment and management of high security jail, open jail (open and semi open), etc.
• Provision for protecting the society from the criminal activities of hardened criminals and habitual offenders, etc.
• Provision for legal aid to prisoners, provision of parole, furlough and premature release etc. to incentivise good conduct.
• Focus on vocational training and skill development of prisoners and their reintegration into the society.

 

Need for the new Prisons Act:

• The prisons Act an antique legislation passed by the colonizers to further the ends of their regime and thus included provisions more concerning maintenance of prison discipline. The welfare aspect of the prisoners is missing in the Act
• The Prisons Act, 1894 mainly focuses on keeping the criminals in custody and enforcement of discipline and order in prisons. There is no provision for reform and rehabilitation of prisoners in the existing Act.
• The Act of 1894 provides for the punishment of whipping and the manner in which the same to be inflicted. These provisions have lost relevancy in Today’s scenario when the more stress is placed on the protection of Human rights of the prisoners.
• The Act does not envisage special provisions for the female prisoners except the fact that the search and examination of female prisoner is to be carries out by the matron in the jail and they be kept in the separate part of the building of the prison.

Significance:

• In India, prisons and the ‘persons detained therein’ are a State subject. The Model Prisons Act, 2023 may serve as a guiding document for states for adoption in their jurisdiction.
• The Prisoners Act of 1900 and the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950 are also decades-old and relevant provisions of these Acts have been assimilated in the Model Prisons Act, 2023, expecting to bring much-needed reforms to the Indian prison system and align it with international standards.

 

What are the challenges faced by the prison system in India?

1. Overcrowding of the Prisons: Overcrowding leads to poor living conditions and also the transmission of many communicable diseases. According to a report from the National Crimes Record Bureau, the jails are operating at 118.5% of their designed capacity.
2. Health and Hygiene: In many prisons, inadequate medical infrastructure contributes to the neglect of inmates, leaving a significant portion of them without proper treatment. Additionally, hygiene practices among prisoners are often lacking.
3. Delay in Trials: A lot of cases are pending for many years. This leads to a disruption in the prison administration system.
4. Custodial Torture: Custodial tortures among prisoners are quite prevalent. Though third-degree torture by police is not allowed after the landmark judgment in D.K Basu’s case 1986, there is still a prevalence of brutal violence inside the prisons.
5. Women: They face both physical and mental problems including lack of sanitation facilities, lack of care during pregnancy, lack of educational training.
6. Increasing Violence: There has been increasing instance of violence and gang war within the prison premise. Ex- Killing of TilluTajpuriya in Tihar Jail.

What are the Initiatives Related to Prison Reforms in India?

• Modernization of Prisons Scheme: The scheme for modernisation of prisons was launched in 2002-03 with the objective of improving the condition of prisons, prisoners and prison personnel.
• Modernisation of Prisons Project (2021-26): Government has decided to provide financial assistance to States and UTs, through the Project for using modern-day security equipment in Prisons.
• E-Prisons Project: The E-Prisons project aims to introduce efficiency in prison management through digitization.
• Model Prison Manual 2016: The manual provides detailed information about the legal services (including free services) available to prison inmates.
• National Legal Services Authority (NALSA): It was constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to establish a nationwide uniform network for providing free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society.

 

THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT (It is the task of students to find the meaning of each)

Retributive theory:

Deterrent Theory:

Preventive theory:

Reformative theory:

 

Conclusion

Along with ‘The Prisons Act, 1894’, ‘The Prisoners Act, 1900’ and ‘The Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950’ have also been reviewed by the Ministry of Home Affairs and relevant provisions of these Acts have been assimilated in the ‘Model Prisons Act, 2023.’ State Governments and Union Territory Administrations can benefit from the Model Prisons Act, 2023 by adopting it in their jurisdictions, with such modifications which they may consider necessary, and repeal the existing three Acts in their jurisdictions. This will result in bringing more transparency and improvement in prison management and prisoners administration across the country.

 

 

 

 

Telangana-Andhra Pradesh Water Dispute

• The dispute over the water share of the Krishna River between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana remains unresolved, even nine years after the bifurcation of the combined State.

About Krishna River

• 2^nd largest east flowing river of Peninsular India
• Originates in Mahabaleshwar near Jor Village (Satara, Maharashtra) and meets Bay of Bengal in Andhra Pradesh.
• It causes heavy soil erosion during monsoon season.
• Major Dams: Almatti Dam, Srisailam Dam, Nagarjuna Sagar Dam, Prakasham Barrage
• Right Bank Tributary: Venna, Koyna, Panchaganga, Dudhganga, Gharaprabha, Malaprabha, Tungabhadra.
• Left Bank Tributary: Bhima, Dindi, Peddavagu, Musi, Paleru, Munneru, Halia.

 

About the Krishna water dispute

• Beginning – Gentlemen’s Agreement:
  • The dispute dates back to the formation of Andhra Pradesh in November, 1956.
  • Before the formation of Andhra Pradesh, four senior leaders each from different regions of Andhra, including the Rayalaseema Region and the Telangana region, signed a Gentlemen’s Agreement on February 20, 1956.
• Protection of Telangana’s interests and needs:
  • Among others, one of the provisions of the agreement was the protection of Telangana’s interests and needs with respect to the utilisation of water resources with equitable distribution based on treaties followed globally.
• Issue:
  • However, the focus of the combined dispensation with respect to irrigation facilities was on Andhra, which already had systems developed by the British at the cost of in-basin drought-prone areas in Telangana — a fact which was argued by the leaders of the latter region from the beginning.

Bachawat Tribunal (KWDT-I):

• In 1969, the Bachawat Tribunal (KWDT-I) was constituted to settle the dispute around water share among the riparian States of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh (before bifurcation).
• Allocation of water:
  • The Tribunal allocated 811 tmcft dependable water to Andhra Pradesh.
  • The Tribunal had also recommended taking the Tungabhadra Dam ( a part of the Krishna Basin) water to the drought-prone Mahabubnagar area of Telangana.
    • However, this was not followed through, giving birth to discontent among the people.
    • Telangana had time and again reiterated how it had been met with injustice in Andhra Pradesh when it came to the matter of distributing water resources.

Arrangement for water sharing after the bifurcation

• Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014:
  • There is no mention of water shares in the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, since the KWDT-I Award, which was still in force, had not made any region-wise allocation.
• Ad hoc arrangement:
  • At a meeting convened by the then Ministry of Water Resources in 2015, the two States had agreed for sharing water in the 34:66 (Telangana:A.P.) ratio as an ad hoc arrangement with the minutes clearly specifying that it has to be reviewed every year.
  • The arrangement in the Act was only for the management of water resources by setting up two Boards,
    • The Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) and
    • The Godavari River Management Board (GRMB).
• Demand of equal share:
  • In October 2020, Telangana raised its voice for an equal share, till water shares are finalised.
  • At a Board meeting held earlier this month, Telangana refused to continue the existing arrangement.
    • Unable to convince the member States, the river Board has referred the matter to the Ministry of Jal Shakti (MoJS).

What does each State claim?

• Telangana’s demand:
  • Telangana has been asking the Centre to finalise water shares from day one of its formation.
  • Citing treaties and agreements followed globally in sharing river waters, Telangana has been arguing that as per the basin parameters, it is entitled for at least a 70% share in the allocation of the 811 tmcft.
  • Besides, it has been highlighting how Andhra Pradesh has been diverting about 300 tmcft water to the areas outside the basin from fluoride-affected and drought-prone areas within the basin in Telangana.
• Andhra Pradesh’s claim:
  • On the other hand, Andhra Pradesh has also been staking claim for a higher share of water to protect the interests of command areas already developed.

Centre’s stand

• The Centre has convened two meetings of the Apex Council comprising the Union Minister and Chief Ministers of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in 2016 and 2020 without making any attempt to deal with the issue.
  • Following a suggestion made by the MoJS in 2020, Telangana has withdrawn its petition over the issue in the Supreme Court as the Ministry had assured to refer the matter of water shares to a Tribunal.
  • However, the Centre has yet to resolve the issue for over two years now even as the two States continue to spar over the matter day in and day out.

 

Constitutional Provisions

• Entry 17 of the State List deals with water i.e., water supply, irrigation, canal, drainage, embankments, water storage and hydro power.
• Entry 56 of the Union List empowers the Union Government for the regulation and development of inter-state rivers and river valleys to the extent declared by Parliament to be expedient in the public interest.
• Article 262 of the Constitution deals with the adjudication of water disputes.
  • Article 262 (1):  Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State River or river valley.
  • Article 262 (2):  Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may, by law, provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint as is referred to in clause (1).

 

Parliamentary Legislations

• As per Article 262 the Parliament has enacted the two laws, the River Boards Act (1956) and the Inter-State Water Disputes Act (1956).
  • River Board Act, 1956: This empowered the GoI to establish Boards for Interstate Rivers and river valleys in consultation with State Governments. To date, no river board has been created.
  • Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956: In case, if a particular state or states approach the Centre for the constitution of the tribunal, the Central Government should try to resolve the matter by consultation among the aggrieved states. In case, if it does not work, then it may constitute the tribunal. Supreme Court shall not question the Award or formula given by tribunal, but it can question the working of the tribunal.

 

What are the Issues with Interstate Water Dispute Tribunals?

• Protracted proceedings and extreme delays in dispute resolution. Water disputes such as the Godavari and Cauvery disputes in India have faced long delays in resolution.
• Opacity in the institutional framework and guidelines that define these proceedings; and ensuring compliance.
• The composition of the tribunal is not multidisciplinary, and it consists of persons only from the judiciary.
• The absence of water data that is acceptable to all parties currently makes it difficult to even set up a baseline for adjudication.
• The growing nexus between water and politics has transformed the disputes into turfs of vote bank politics. This politicisation has led to increasing defiance by states, extended litigations and subversion of resolution mechanisms.