An Overview of Correctional Administration

SULKHAN SINGH, IPS

B.E.(Civil) Rke, PGD(Strs.) IIT/D, LL.B., F.I.E.
ADG Police & Inspector General
Prison Administration and Reform Services
Uttar Pradesh
E-mail- sulkhansingh@gmail.com
__________________________________________________________________

Correctional Administration is a very important part of criminal justice system of a

country. A large number of human beings- old, young, female & children are confined in jails. It
is said that the condition of prison inmates show the extent to which a country is civilized.
The purpose pf prisons is primarily to execute custodial punishments in a safe, secure and
humane manner. The concept of correctional possibilities has been introduced as a consequence
of increasing belief that criminal nature of a man can be corrected. There is a mass of theoretical
and logical argument in support of this, though not a substantial evidence of it. Yet taking a
holistic view of the system, I have attempted to present this overview.
Here I have taken there issues of criminal justice system which impact on Management of
prisons and Correctional administration. These are listed below -
(1) Reducing undertrial period.
(2) Conviction period and good behaviour.
(3) Parole/ Probation.
(4) Alternatives to custodial punishment.
(5) Geriatric justice.
(6) Sentencing guidelines.
(7) De-stigmatizing punishment.

(1) Reducing undertrial (UT) period :- A large UT period is a sign of failing

criminal justice system. In a civilised society, no person should be deprived of his liberty except
on a conviction by an independent, impartial, honest and competent judicial authority.

Sulkhan Singh, IPS/IG Prisons, UP 1

LNJN NICFS /17.05.2010
The position of undertrial population is not very happy in western countries and USA but it is
alarming in India.
The position is as follows -

Sl.No. Name of Country % of UT prisoners to total population.

1. U.S.A. 21.2
2. U.K. 15.07
3. Australia 22.4
4. Bangladesh 67.7
5. Pakistan 66.1
6. Russian Fed. 15.6
7. India 69.7
* Prison briefs KC London -

The percentage of undertrial prisoners for different periods of detention in 2007 was as
follows - ( Source - Prison Statistics India - 2007 - NCRB )

Sl. Period of Detention All India - % of Uttar Pradesh- % of

No. Total UT prisoners# Total UT prisoners*
1 upto 3 months 41.3 32.7
2 3-6 months 20.9 19.9
3 6-12 months 17.3 18.7
4 1-2 years 11.5 13.8
5 2-3 years 5.5 8.6
6 3-5 years 2.7 4.0
7 above 5 years 0.8 2.3
Source- * Prison Statistics Uttar Pradesh 2008
# Prison Statistics India 2007, NCRB

This situations calls for drastic and immediate steps to improve the state of affairs.
Following steps are suggested in their regard -

(a) Undertrial period should be allowed to be set-off against terms of imprisonment in

default of payment of fine.
(b) Remission should be allowed for the undertrial period, on the same scales as for convict
period.
(c) The period in excess of conviction term should be compensated at a uniform rate. It is
suggested that this rate be fixed at the level of lowest pay of Group 'A' officer of the
Central Government.

Sulkhan Singh, IPS/IG Prisons, UP 2

LNJN NICFS /17.05.2010
 (d) Arrest during investigation and trial to be made only when there are material grounds to
believe of his absconding, committing further crimes or harming himself. Arrests should be
very rigorously monitored.

(2) Convict Period :- The period of conviction in a jail should be made safe, secure and

humane. Remission of punishment for good conduct is a very effective motivation to induce
high standards of prison discipline. Now a days certain offences like NDPS Act, has been taken
out of the purview of the remission system. This is causing serious discipline and correctional
problems in Jails. If a feeling sets in that good conduct is not being rewarded, the fall of
standards of indiscipline is inevitable.
Wages: - Wages paid to convicts or undertrials who do work in jail should be reasonable and
linked to minimum wages. Minimum wage payable could be 1/2 of the minimum wages and
maximum should be 2/3 of minimum wages as fixed by the government from time to time.

(3) Parole/ Probation:- There is confusion about the meaning attached to these two
terms. Here I have used these terms in the following sense-
(1) Parole- Temporary suspension of sentence for some emergent purpose or other
contingency.
(2) Probation- Release on licence under supervision of a person or Govt. official. This
period is reckoned as imprisonment of loose type and counts for earning remissions under short
sentencing rules made under Prisons Acts. These terms have to be defined in Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 to clear confusion.

Following reforms in parole and probation system are suggested –

Parole
(a) Not more than 15 days in one go. Not to exceed 30 days in a year.
(b) It will not count as imprisonment.
(c) If escape is apprehended the parole could be under the police escort.
(d) Power to grant parole be given to Superintendent of Prisons and other superior prison
authorities to avoid delay.

Sulkhan Singh, IPS/IG Prisons, UP 3

LNJN NICFS /17.05.2010
Probation
(a) Eligibility - It should be admissible after serving 1/3 of the term (excluding remission).
Undertrial period should be included in 1/3 term suggested above.
(b) Short term probation - After eligibility period - 30 days probation in every year should
be granted. This period shall count for earning remission.
(c) Long term probation - After a person has undergone 3 annual probations with good
conduct and without absenting, he should be released on probation for a period extending up
to the balance of the remaining term. In case of life imprisonment where section 433-A of
Cr.P.C. is not attracted, life term should mean 14 years and where section 433-A of Cr.P.C is
attracted, life term should mean 20 years. Person accused of offences like murder of more
than 2 persons, murder of a child, murder with rape, murder with kidnapping for ransom,
terrorist case murder or murder by drug peddlers gang, no long term probation be given.
Eligibility in such cases should be after 12 years of actual imprisonment has been served.
(d) Geriatric parole - (i) Old persons above the age of 60 years but below 70 years can be
directed to reside at least 50 Km. away from the place of crime.
(ii) above 70 years and below 80 years can be directed to be confined in their
homes. They can be allowed to move out only for medical purposes under
intimation to the local Thana.
(iii) Person above 80 years should not be imprisoned as a matter of geriatric
justice.
(e) Special women parole - Women under the age of 30 years and those with children
below 10 years of age could be ordered to live at least 50 Km away from place of crime.

(4) Alternatives to custodial punishment: - Incarceratory (custodial)

punishment has been found to be not only not very effective, it has been found that it is very
expensive system of punishment, both in material as well as human terms. It dehumanizes the
person and benumbs his sensitivities. Effective alternatives to custodial punishment have to be
evolved. Following alternative should be seriously and urgently considered -
(a) Home detention
(b) Externment to a place at least 100 Km away from place of crime.
(c) Community service.

Sulkhan Singh, IPS/IG Prisons, UP 4

LNJN NICFS /17.05.2010
 These alternatives shall not be available to habitual or professional criminals like thieves,
pick pockets, robbery, chain snatchers, burglars, terrorists, drug peddlers, excise offenders,
economic offenders and the like.

(5) Geriatric Justice:- Criminal Justice System as it operates on old persons ie

Geriatrics, ought to be a serious cause of concern to intellectuals, Jurists and social science
students. Age has always had something to do with crime and punishment. All societies and
systems of criminal justice recognise age as an important factor in determining whether and act
is a crime and if so then what punishment is to be awarded to the deviant.
Age has impact on several aspect of criminal justice. Broadly these can be classed into
two – (a) Age and culpability, and (b) Age and punishment.
Age is accepted as an important determinant in deciding suitable punishment for the
offender. A person who has not completed an age of 18 years is called a Juvenile or child. Such a
person is not to be punished with prison term. Even for intermediate pre-trial custody, he is not
to be lodged in a prison or police lock-up. When found guilty, he is dealt with in a probationary
way; in remand home, reformation, schools etc. His conviction carries no stigma. This is done in
the hope and belief that by reformative handling, he can be weaned away from crime and
reclaimed as a useful member of society.
Punishments are awarded keeping in view also among other, the capacity to undergo the
type and quantum of punishment. In every system, fitness to undergo the punishment is
determined before actual infliction. A person punished with death is not executed if he is acutely
ill. He is treated and restored to good health before execution. A person punished with hard
work is medically judged for his suitability to do a work and only such labour is allotted to him
which he is physically and mentally fit to endure. Section 50 of the Prisons Act 1994, provides
for medical certification of fitness to undergo punishment of penal diet, either singly or in
combination, or of whipping, or of change of labour.
The same consideration should be given to the old persons in respect of punishment of
imprisonment, as now the mass of research and study has shown that incarceration has serious
psycho-somatic impact on aged prisoner.
Age and punishment and the type of punishment can be discussed from two perspective
i.e. (1) Ethical-moral, (2) Constitutional - legal.

Sulkhan Singh, IPS/IG Prisons, UP 5

LNJN NICFS /17.05.2010
Ethical- Moral issues:- Physically and psychologically a very old persons say seventy
years and above in age is unfit to undergo a punishment of imprisonment. Besides the fact that
incarcerating such a geriatric serves no useful purpose, it is cruel and insensitive to imprison a
person reduced to physical and emotional helplessness. It is well said that children and very old
persons are alike in nature and behaviour. Geriatric justice demands as much and similar
attention as juvenile justice. A society which deals its old in such an utterly insensitive and cruel
manner is hardly fit to be called civilised.
According to U.S. National Institute of Corrections study, “Prisons are alien and
intimidating to the sensitivities and vulnerabilities of old age and illness. In short, providing
care in prison settings poses significant challenges to ethical and effective medical practice.
Worldwide it is now accepted that prisons are not geared to the specific needs and
vulnerabilities of older people. The continued incarceration of frail elders- who represent the
smallest threat to public safety but the largest cost to incarcerate- embodies failed public
policy.”

Constitutional-legal issues :- Article 21 of the constitution offers protections to life and

personal liberty. These can be curtailed only in accordance with procedure established by law.
Such a procedure has to be just, reasonable and fair. An old person is unfit to undergo a
punishment of imprisonment and therefore a punishment of imprisonment is unreasonable in
respect of an old person.
Further, Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law. Here the
equality before law is there, but does the law offer equal protection to young and old alike. To
illustrate the concept of equal protection, consider a five feet wall which though offers equality
in protection against shootout to every person, but not equal protection to every one, as all those
who are taller than five feet are exposed to being shot in the head. Similarly an old person is not
equally protected against harshness and inclemency of custodial punishment. The punishment of
imprisonment operates differently on persons in different age groups. The research in U.S. shows
that, “A year of imprisonment given to an offender in his or her 60’s takes a considerably
larger proportion of that person’s remaining years than the same punishment imposed on a 20
year old”. In U.S., the offender’s ability to do time is taken into account while sentencing.
Very old persons in jail present a pathetic sight. During my visits to central prisons the
scene was found to be heart rending and shocking. Old persons may be culpable but they are not
fit to undergo a punishment of imprisonment. Alternatives of imprisonment have to be devised. It
is not difficult to do so. Juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, gives as

Sulkhan Singh, IPS/IG Prisons, UP 6

LNJN NICFS /17.05.2010
important lead. We need to enact a Geriatric justice Act to provide for suitable handling of
geriatrics in conflict with law. Fines may be a viable alternative. If the offender has property,
heavy fines could be imposed. They could be released in protective custody of care and watch
for a period of three years. Home detention order is a very effective option. Community based
alternatives to incarceration must be evolved. Geriatric parole may also be introduced.
A geriatric may be defined as a person who has completed the age of seventy years on the
date of sentencing. A person undergoing imprisonment whether as a convict or under trial should
be released on personal bond or under the care of a person or institution, on the day he becomes a
geriatric. Where there is none to take care of the geriatric, they should be sent to Geriatric Care
Units specially established by the government for this purpose. An age sensitive criminal justice
system is absolute imperative.

(6) Sentencing Guidelines:- The wide and unguided discretion in awarding a

sentence of punishment to a guilty person has been engaging the attention of all those interested
in the functioning of criminal justice system. After a person accused of an offence is held guilty,
the court awards certain punishment to him. The different kinds of punishment have been
provided in section 53 of IPC. Various provisions of IPC or any other penal law prescribe
punishment in the following manner:-
(1) Imprisonment for a term which may extend to ........ and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Imprisonment for a term which may extend to........ or fine or both.
(3) Death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which may extend to .......
and shall also be liable to fine.

The wide discretion left to the court to award punishment from death to imprisonment for
life or for a term and or fine having no limit, is arbitrary and abhorrent to reasonableness. Our
penal code defines all different types of culpable acts or omission with so much precision and
fine variations that a wide scope for discretion is not justified. It has been advocated to prescribe
sentencing guide lines. Countries like U.S and U.K have detailed sentencing guide lines.
Committee for Reforms in Criminal Justice system headed by Justice V.S. Malimath (The
Malimath Committee) also considered this issue. Its report in Para 14.4.1 says:
“ ---------- The Judge has wide discretion in awarding the sentence within the statutory
limits. There is now no guidance to the Judge in regard to selecting the most appropriate
sentence given the circumstances of the case. Therefore each Judge exercises discretion
Sulkhan Singh, IPS/IG Prisons, UP 7
LNJN NICFS /17.05.2010
accordingly to his own judgment. There is therefore no uniformity. Some Judges are lenient
and some Judges are harsh. Exercise of unguided discretion is not good even if it is the Judge
that exercises the discretion. In some countries guidance regarding sentencing option is given
in the penal code and sentencing guideline laws. There is need for such law in our country to
minimise uncertainty to the matter of awarding sentence. --------”

The second Administrative Reforms Commission in its fifth report (Public Order), has
felt the need for and recommended framing of sentencing guidelines, in following terms:

7.9.6 The Commission is of the view that it is necessary to have a framework of

sentencing guidelines, to ensure similar treatment in similarly placed cases. This
would also help in increasing people’s confidence in the criminal justice system, as
when people hear of wide variations in the amount of sentence for similarly placed
cases, their confidence in the system gets eroded. The Commission also feels that
instead of bringing in such guidelines through a statutory mechanism it would be
better to have them within the judicial framework, specially since some sort of
guidelines have already evolved through judicial decisions.

We have defined offences very clearly, explicitly and made fine distinction as
regards an offence depending on conditions of crime, the offender’s position of trust or authority,
severity of execution, place of occurrence etc. For example there are several types of thefts,
Dacoity, breach of trust, public disorder, homicides, offences of hurt and injury etc. What is
cause of concern is, the fact that the punishment generally prescribed leaves a very wide range
from zero to seven, ten or fourteen years. Thus vastly different punishment are awarded for same
offence by different courts.
Similarly the range of fine in IPC is not defined at all. This leaves a wide scope for
subjectivity, court-dependent, person-centric quantum of punishment and a large discretion. This
is clearly not desirable.
We may achieve the objective of reasonably limited discretion, more objectivity, inflation
linked fine and more human sensitive policy for imprisonment in default of payment of fine, by
prescribing imprisonment, fine and imprisonment in default of fine on a scale. We may provide

Sulkhan Singh, IPS/IG Prisons, UP 8

LNJN NICFS /17.05.2010
by law that all penal statutes shall prescribe punishment on laid down scales of imprisonment,
fine and imprisonment in default of fine.
The scales suggested are as follows –
Table 1
SCALES OF IMPRISONMENT

SCALE Range of Imprisonment Nature of offence where recommended

Minimum Maximum Unit
1 1 6 Months Petty misdemeanors
2 6 18 Months Small crimes
3 3 5 Years Majority of criminal activities
4 7 10 Years Serious crimes
5 10 15 Years Where at present Life term without
Death is provided
6 20 25 Years Where at present Life term or Death is
provided
7 30 40 Years Terrorist murders, Drug trafficking/
Gangster murders etc.

Table 2
SCALES OF FINE
SCALE Fine in LMU Nature of offence where
Minimum Maximum recommended
1 1/10 1/5
2 1/5 1 Petty misdemeanors
3 2 4
4 8 15 Majority of criminal activities
5 25 50
6 100 200 Very serious crimes
7 200 400 Terrorist/ Drug trafficking/ Gangster
murders etc.

Sulkhan Singh, IPS/IG Prisons, UP 9

LNJN NICFS /17.05.2010
 The fine prescribed in tables here is in terms of legal monetary unit (LMU). An L.M.U.
is an amount equal to the pay and dearness allowance admissible to the lowest paid employee
of the Central Government as admissible on 1st day of July of the calendar year, previous to
the year in which offence took place. If the offence continues for some period, then the day of
beginning of the offence shall be taken as the year of occurrence of the offence. This will take
care of inflation. In present system, after certain period the amount of fine becomes ridiculously
insignificant.

Also no upper limit prescribed for fines as at present, offers wide scope for subjectivity
and misuse. The scales of imprisonment take into account the severity of offence and allow a
reasonable scope for judicial discretion. The court is enjoined to award the minimum of the
sentences and up to maximum prescribed in that scale. Penal provision will mention scale of
imprisonment and fine only.

IMPRISONMENT IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE:- To understand the prevailing

situation in this regard, 86 cases from selected central prisons and district jails were analysed.
The imprisonment in default of payment of fine was calculated. The minimum comes out to Rs.
167/- per month and the maximum to Rs. 7500/- per month, though in one case it was found to
be Rs. 16667/- per month also. The average comes to Rs. 1171/- to a month. This clearly shows
that present practice places more value on money and less on human liberty. It is grossly unjust
and unethical and violative of article 14 of the constitution. This system does not operate equally
on all prisoners. A poor person will have to languish for long period in jails while a rich will buy
his freedom very cheap. Human liberty ought not to be so cheap. The liberty is equally valuable
for rich and poor. The jail term in default of fine ought to be so arranged that poor and rich both
give it a thought as to whether pay fine or serve jail term. The policy or arbitrariness (!) is
manifestly discriminatory, cruel and unjust. If default of say one lakh of fine invites a jail term of
one month, then people will consciously decide whether to pay fine or serve jail term. But if a
default of 4000 rupees involves jail term of 3 months, the poor has no options but to serve jail
term and the rich will not wink an eye lid before paying rupees four thousand. Present policy
places humiliatingly low price on human liberty and dignity. If vast majority of people have no
option to choose from fine or jail term, the policy is manifestly unjust, unfair and unreasonable.

Sulkhan Singh, IPS/IG Prisons, UP 10

LNJN NICFS /17.05.2010
Therefore taking this into account short terms for default of fine of large amount have been
suggested. These are given in Table 3 below-

Table 3
IMPRISONMENT IN DEFAULT OF FINE
Fine in LMU Imprisonment in Default of fine
SCALE Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Unit
1 1/10 1/5 5 10 Days
2 1/5 1 10 15 Days
3 2 4 20 30 Days
4 8 15 2 4 Months
5 25 50 6 9 Month
6 100 200 1 2 Years
7 200 400 2 3 Years

NOTE: Imprisonment in default shall be proportionate to the unpaid portion of fine and shall
terminate when remaining proportional part of fine is paid.

There are two more fundamental penological paradigm shifts in scale system of
imprisonment suggested above -
(1) Absence of death penalty and,
(2) Absence of imprisonment for life.
Death penalty: - In a civilized society consciously and cool headedly killing a human being, by
State, even as a punishment is barbarous and cruel. It is against human dignity. Death penalty is
also objectionable from the point that it is very large leap from imprisonment for life and is
irrevocable. It gives unjust discretion to a fellow human to take the life of another. Lord
Denning appearing before the Royal Commission on ‘Capital Punishment’ expressed the
following views:
“Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrong doing
and in order to maintain respect for law, it is essential that punishment inflicted for
grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of the
citizens. For them it is a mistake to consider the object of punishment as being
deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else. The truth is that some
crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment because
wrong doer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is deterrent or not.”

Sulkhan Singh, IPS/IG Prisons, UP 11

LNJN NICFS /17.05.2010
 Committee for Reforms in Criminal Justice system headed by Justice V.S. Malimath (The
Malimath Committee) says:

“14.2 Punishment must be severe enough to act as a deterrent but not too severe to
be brutal. Similarly punishments should be moderate enough to be human but
cannot be too moderate to be ineffective.” Para-14.2

Therefore, Scale- 6 with a minimum of 20 year and extending up to 25 year is a just and stiff
substitute for death penalty. In cases of terrorist murder etc. Scale-7 with a minimum of 30 year
and extending up to 40 year can be provided.
Imprisonment for life:- Imprisonment for life is a punishment with indeterminate length of
time. Uncertainty itself is cruel. Uncertainty and indefiniteness is vindictive and barbaric. In
effect it is worse than death. Long prison terms serve no useful purpose. In fact an indefinite jail
term gives an impression of sadistic vindictiveness making the prisoner hostile towards society
rather than repentant for his deeds. Therefore this term has been substituted by a scale of
imprisonment which is quite adequate as per penological thought today. Scale-6 with a minimum
of 20 years and extending up to 25 years is just and proper substitute for sentence where at
present imprisonment for life or Death have been provided. Where at present only Imprisonment
for life is provided, scale 5, with a minimum of 10 years and extending up to 15 years would be
just and adequate.

(7) De-stigmatising the punishment: - A person who commits an offence is given

a punishment. At present a punishment carries a number of strings (disabilities) attached to it.

There is absolutely no ground or justification for subjecting a person to continued disabilities
because he was once convicted. It is extremely cruel and vengeful to see that a person is not able
to come out of the shadows of the crime even after undergoing the sentence awarded. A sentence
os imprisonment is so harsh and debilitating that any disability attached to it subsequently is
utterly sadistic. Every person deserves a chance, a new lease of life. Fortunately the Indian
society affords such a chance and does not attach stigmas to a convict released after serving his
term. It is also absolutely essential for the rehabilitation of a released convict. Therefore it is
suggested that a person who has served his sentence should not be kept under any disability
whatever on account of such conviction.
---------------------

Sulkhan Singh, IPS/IG Prisons, UP 12

LNJN NICFS /17.05.2010