Fatty Jail Birds

Indian criminal justice systems swing to the extremes. Either third grade tortures or too much sweet hospitality. In the latest swinger, Tamil Nadu jails report excess weight gain of its inmates. There is popular saying in Tamil - Mamiyar veedu. Jail means in-laws place where you get regular food. What was intended to reform the prisoners seem to be turning out to be a sensation creator. This does not augur well for the criminal justice system. Some of the prisoners are able to enjoy the clout with their money power. Look at Shahbuddin the serial killer from Bihar, Manu Sharma the rich brat, Annachi of the Saravana Bhavan. All of these super rich jail birds are making mockery of their jail terms. This must end at the earliest.

The Times of India writes on 23 November 2009


Steaming hot upma or pongal, sambhar rice with vegetables, boiled peanuts, dal with ghee and roasted chicken. This is not the menu card of a south Indian restaurant, but food served to inmates of various prisons in Tamil Nadu.

No wonder, a jail stint in the state leaves prisoners with an expanded waistline or even a pot-belly, contrary to the general perception that jailbirds look haggard or emaciated.

Nearly 90% of prisoners in the state who were freed during 2007-08 have gone home with increased weight, according to the latest data released by the Department of Statistics and Economics. Interestingly, not even a single prisoner lost weight during his/her stay in jail, going by the details given.

Of the 4,796 prisoners released, 4,231 people, including 241 women, had gained weight varying from 1 kg to 3 kg, while there was no change in the weight of the rest. Of the prisoners released during 2006-07, 115 had gained over 5 kg, the statistics revealed.

“What the prisoners in TN get is a balanced diet of the sort they may not get outside,’’ said V Kannadasan, special public prosecutor for the Human Rights Court. “They are served bed-time tea at 6 am, followed by upma or pongal or gruel for breakfast. At noon, they are served 650 gm of rice with sambhar, butter milk and vegetables, which is followed by boiled peanuts in the evening. Dinner consists of 550 gm of rice with sambhar. For those advised a wheat diet by doctors, chappatis and dal are served,’’ he added.

Sundays are special as the prisoners are served 150 gm of chicken. While those in ‘A’ class cells get to relish the non-vegetarian dish thrice a week, vegetarians are served dal with ghee.

Should the bulging waistline of prisoners be attributed to nutritious food or lack of physical activity? “We ensure that their diet has a proper mix of nutrition to meet calorific requirements. To improve the quality of commodities, we’ve dispensed with the contract system and started procuring food items from the public distribution system,’’ said R Natraj, DGP (fire and rescue services).

However, some activists disagree with the official theory, saying that the “obesity’’ of prisoners was due to a lack of physical activity. “The weight gain among prisoners does not indicate that they are being given nutritious food. People above 40 years are generally prone to gaining weight and hence it cannot be taken as an indicator of their well-being,’’ said lawyer-activist Sudha Ramalingam.

P Pugazhenthi, director, Prisoners Rights Forum, said unlike earlier times, prisoners were not being given physical work, which not only kept them fit but also fetched them remuneration.

Lawyers Police as Rowdies in Chennai

Different institutions of the government work at cross purposes. This is becoming more common in India. Legal fraternity and police often clash over their rights and duties. In the recent clash in Chennai High Court there was a ample display of hooliganism of both sides. Every common man was wondering whether the fighting people are constitution safe guarders or rowdies.

The Hindu writes 6.3.2009, p.1,
Justice B.N. Srikrishna, retired Supreme Court judge, has blamed lawyers for behaving as “hooligans and miscreants” and provoking the police to resort to a lathicharge on the Madras High Court premises on February 19, and also strongly indicted the police for exceeding the limits in controlling the situation.
In his interim report submitted to a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice Srikrishna said: “In my view, the circumstances facing the police on the fateful day without doubt justified quelling the unruly and rioting mob of lawyers by use of force, but the police went beyond what was permissible use of force.”
The report said: “There is no doubt that the violence was started by the unruly mob of lawyers, some of whom were even dressed in robes and bands, but once the police got into action, there was no stopping them. It was as if the police force, as a body, went berserk. The lathicharge continued irrespective of whether a lawyer was a miscreant or otherwise.”
Though the Srikrishna Committee was asked to name the police officers who had given orders for the lathicharge, the report says: “Unless a detailed inquiry is made into the role played by each of the lawyers in the rioting mob as well as each of the constables and/or officers of the police force, it will be difficult to pinpoint the responsibility on the individuals.”
Justice Srikrishna said: “The agitated lawyers whom I interviewed were demanding the scalp of the DGP and other senior police officers.” He pointed out that as a result of the Supreme Court order on February 26, four officers were already transferred from Chennai. “As far as the Commissioner of Police [K. Radhakrishnan] is concerned, I do not think that any blame can be laid at his door. He was actually present at the spot only after 17.14 hours.”
Justice Srikrishna said: “My view, albeit prima facie, is that the soft-pedalling policy followed by the Madras High Court judges has led to the present piquant situations. The lawyers appear to have been encouraged by the wrong signals sent out and seemed to think that they could do anything and get away within the court premises. Regretfully, far from being the upholders of the rule of law, the lawyers seem to have behaved as hooligans and miscreants.”
The incidents that transpired over the last month or so “make it clear that the lawyers seemed to be under the impression that, because they are officers of the court, they are immune from the process of law and that they could get away with any unlawful act without being answerable to the law enforcing agency. It is most unfortunate that the soft policy adopted by the Acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Court and its administration sent out clearly a wrong message that encouraged and emboldened the lawyers into becoming lawbreakers.”
Tracing the sequence of events, the report pointed out that a large number of police officers were present in the court apprehending some untoward incident in view of the presence of Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy (in connection with a case). Around 2.20 p.m., some of the accused advocates, who claimed to have come to the B-4 Police Station on the court campus, refused to surrender and allow themselves to be taken into custody, and entered into an argument with the police officers insisting that Dr. Swamy be arrested first, after which alone they could be arrested. This led to a wordy duel.
The report said that when the police started pushing the accused advocates into a police van, the mob of lawyers swelled. They started shouting derogatory and provocative slogans and making aggressive gestures at the police. At 5.30 p.m., the unruly mob of lawyers was seen breaking open the police station and setting it on fire.
“At this time there appears to have been an order for lathicharge and the policemen are seen chasing the mob with their lathis and charging at them. Once the policemen were given the order to lathicharge the unruly mob of lawyers to quell them, it would appear that the police interpreted it as a licence to unleash mayhem at will. The policemen behaved in the same fashion as the unruly mob of lawyers.”
The report said: “The policemen, who undoubtedly had lawful authority to subdue the rioting mob, are seen using force disproportionate to the occasion and even after some of the rioters had actually been overpowered and apprehended. I noticed extensive damage to the court’s properties. The court staff were unanimous that all this damage was inflicted by the policemen.”
The report said: “It would be ideal if the Advocates Act is amended to ensure a better disciplinary mechanism of the profession of law, since it affects not only lawyers but also litigants, the administration of justice in the country and finally the rule of law itself.
It is crucial to save the public institutions from the rowdyism of this kind. If it is allowed to grow and spread to other parts of the country then whatever little respect common man has for the institutions will wither away permanently.