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.

Manu's Parole Drama

Time and again it is proven that the money and power can break the law. For these powerful and mighty law doesn't matter. The law can be bought and sold.This is clear from the recent release of Manu Sharma the serial criminal despite objections by the Delhi police. The Government of Delhi needs to take the blame and fix this problem first before taking about anything else.

The Times of India writes (13 Novemebr 2009)


It has now been established that rules were bent when Manu Sharma, who is serving a life sentence for the murder of model Jessica Lall, was given
parole. Sharma had sought parole on three grounds: to participate in the religious rites of his late grandmother; attend to his ailing mother; and to take care of his business. Delhi police did not find any of these reasons good enough to grant parole. However, the Delhi government did not go by its own state police recommendations and cleared Sharma's request based on a report by the Chandigarh police. Incidentally, Sharma's father is an influential Congress politician in Chandigarh. Besides, Sharma's request was processed in unseemly haste.

The way parole was granted to Sharma makes a mockery of justice. The Supreme Court has ruled that every accused or convict should be released on parole once a year. In principle this is a good thing. But in reality parole pleas of ordinary convicts across the country have been gathering dust. This is true also for Tihar jail, where Sharma is serving his sentence.

The parole figures for Delhi clearly show that the system isn't working. This year, out of 132 applications for parole from prisoners in Tihar, only 11 were approved. And despite a court directive that parole applications be processed quickly it takes more than 8-10 months to decide most cases. In many cases the delay often negates the very reason for which parole was being requested. It's clear that very few convicts do manage to get parole, and Sharma was one of them. The situation in Delhi is further complicated because the lieutenant-governor and not the director-general of police has the final say. This could lead to situations where considerations other than urgency or merit of the application could creep in, as it seems to have done in Sharma's case.

That the parole system is not working is also evident from prisoners who have disappeared after being out on parole. These include terrorists and ISI agents. Clearly, the way parole is being handled needs to be overhauled. The SC's logic of being lenient about parole is laudable since that could be a way of reforming criminals. But if the system is being subverted to favour the powerful or to allow dangerous criminals to flee, that cannot be allowed to continue. The method of processing and tracking parole needs to be streamlined so that only deserving criminals, whether for good behaviour or the urgency of their request, are let out. The others, including dangerous criminals, must remain behind bars.

Jammed Judiciary

It takes life to get justice in India. With more than 3 crore pending cases it is difficult for the judiciary to handle. Importantly the justice seekers get frustrated over the decades delay.

The Times of India writes (17 August 2009)

We are facing an alarming shortage of judges. According to the Supreme Court, more than 1,500 high court judges and 23,000 subordinate court judges
are needed to clear the backlog of civil and criminal cases in a year. There are about 280 vacant posts in high courts alone. It is estimated that over three crore cases are pending in our courts. The enormity of the task calls for urgent action.

A first step towards addressing the issue is to fill vacancies in the judiciary. Considering the pressures of the job, it may not be easy to find as many qualified professionals for the judiciary as required at a short notice. The suggestion that retired judicial officers be invited to help clear the backlog is welcome. The vacation system of judges must be rationalised so that they have more time to decide cases. A number of steps ranging from better technology, like computerisation of court records to creation of alternate platforms to settle disputes as envisaged in the Gram Nyayalay Bill, are also necessary to streamline the functioning of the judiciary. Some of these measures have already been initiated.

Special courts could help towards speedy disposal of cases. Take the example of land-related cases, which constitute a major portion of pending cases. These tend to drag on and clog the system. Family courts, which encourage matters like divorce to be settled out of court, have been a successful experiment. In a similar vein, special courts attached to panchayati raj institutions could be set up to redress land disputes. This should go hand in hand with computerisation of land records. Availability of clear title deeds alone would help reduce the amount of land-related litigation. An interesting experiment by high court judges in Kerala to reach out to citizens through television could be replicated in other states if it doesn't lead to any conflict of interest. It is also necessary to think of other ways to reduce litigation. We have become a litigious society largely because we don't have mechanisms and platforms to resolve disputes before they reach the courts.

In the absence of an efficient judiciary, it is impossible to build a functioning democracy. Judicial delays create cynicism among citizens about the efficacy of our institutions in dispensing justice in a free and fair manner. Besides, it is a deterrent for investors who need sanctity of contract above everything. India can't afford that. It's time we paid adequate attention to the needs of the judiciary.

Accountability of Judiciary

The judiciary always pose a high moral order. But when it comes to its own accountability it backs out. It is important that the judicial fraternity set a good example by disclosing their annual income in the website.

The Times of India writes (6 August 2008)

The opposition has done the right thing by forcing the government to defer the Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Bill. The Bill,
which seeks to extend the principle of accountability and transparency to the higher judiciary, falls short of its intent in the present form.

The Bill makes it mandatory for judges to disclose their assets before a designated authority, but doesn't allow the disclosure to be made public. A contentious clause in the Bill prevents any citizen, court or authority from questioning the disclosures. It says "no judge shall be subjected to any inquiry or query in relation to the contents of the declaration by any person". The opposition has objected to this provision and termed it a violation of the Constitution. The objection is valid. What the clause does is to treat the judiciary as a privileged class with special rights that no other group of citizens enjoys. No other category of public servants enjoys such immunity from public scrutiny. It has been pointed out, and rightly so, that the clause violates the republican principle that all citizens are equal before the law.

The judiciary's demand for exemption stems from the fear that disgruntled parties could misuse the disclosure and embarrass judges if it is available in the public domain. Such fears may be valid but not reasonable enough to justify the judges' claim for exemption from public scrutiny. Laws that cover other categories of people in public life, like elected representatives, don't make any exemption for similar fears and mandates that they disclose their assets before the public. Penalties and harsher strictures could be thought of to prevent spurious litigation and other forms of harassment.

There has been a concerted effort in recent times to enforce the highest norms of accountability and transparency in public life. Laws like the Right to Information Act and Representation of the People Act have helped a great deal to address corruption in public life and improve governance.
The judiciary has been supportive of these initiatives. It has, in many cases, intervened to make sure that laws intended to do so are foolproof. It must adhere to the highest norms of probity it has set for other public institutions and not become an exception to the trend. The government must incorporate the suggestions of the opposition, address the fears of the judiciary and reintroduce a foolproof Bill in Parliament as early as possible.

Judges accountability

Some people wanted to escape from accountability. Some are protected due to their sensitive jobs. Judiciary has the immunity from day-to-day pin pricks. This is given to the guardians of constitution to defend them from any sort of trouble. A professional without protection cannot deliver his duty properly. Unfortunately this magnanimous rule has been misused by few people in the judiciary. In the wave of open information some people are demanding that judges should be brought under the income disclosure and be available for scrutiny. This has pros and cons.

With judiciary getting tainted in several corruption cases including the infamous Provident Fund case of Ghaziabad, the demand to include judges in the asset disclosure sounds reasonable. Extreme corruption and nepotism have infiltrated into every sphere of the society. Judiciary is not an exception. Most times India is proud to have efficient and honest judges. Sometimes black cats enter judiciary and spoil the image of the highest rule safeguarding body. They are big blot in the society.

Instead of putting a blanket ban on scrutiny of judges there should be efficient mechanism to expose corrupt elements and at the same protect the honest officers. Without a visionary approach to the present problem, judiciary will be messed up. An internal mechanism to monitor the wealth of judges can be installed. Although the vigilance department is meant to tap the illegal eagles in government machinery its efficiency is doubted.

Fali S. Nariman the eminent jurist says “Judges of the highest court who have powers to life and death over us citizens, judges who can (and do) send people to jail to jail for contempt of its order must – I repeat must – show that they too are amenable to good practice”

“that is how they earn the respect of us commoners. We in India learn by example – never by precept. For judges of the highest court to litigate as to whether or not they should disclose their assets is as bad as judges going to the court on whether it was lawful for income tax to be deducted from the salaries they get! We have good judges, but we need more judicial wisdom”.

The Central Information Commission has asked judges to disclose their assets after a petition filled. The Delhi High Court stayed the order and now it has gone to the Supreme Court. Instead of dismissing the petition the Supreme Court must impose a code of self-regulation for judges to maintain integrity. The vigilance department should be active to tap erring judges and pass on the higher authorities for weeding them out immediately.