Budget 2023: FM’s comment on fiscal support for prisoners sees mixed response

The Union finance ministers statement about providing financial support to prisoners unable to afford penalties and bail amounts and setting up a budgetary provision for eCourts has received a mixed response from human rights activists and criminal advocatesOver 432 crore criminal and civil cases are pending in courts across India as per National Judicial Data Grid and over 5000 prisoners are behind bars after being released on bail according to a National Legal Services Authority NALSA report submitted to the apex court on January 31Madhurima Dhanuka programme head Prison Reforms Programme Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative New Delhi said ldquoThe Union Budget 202324 has allocated funds towards modernisation of prisons Rs 250 crore an interoperable criminal justice system Rs 5906 crore national legal aid services Rs 200 crore and phase III of the eCourts project Rs 7000 croreThe big pictureldquoProviding financial support to poor prisoners while a welcome initiative has its own set of concerns The NALSA figure is a marginal one as compared to the 18 lakh prisoners that are admitted to prisons each yearrdquo said DhanukaAlso Read Budget 2023 Experts welcome health budget but add may need more fundsldquoA focus on larger issues such as promoting bail on personal bonds which do not require sureties to be produced expediting trials considering that the period of detention of prisoners confined for 3 to 5 years has nearly doubled from 2010 to 2021 and placing effective checks on arbitrary and unnecessary arrests is required Its time that we look at the bigger picture find the causation links for prison overcrowding and deteriorating prison conditions as well as answer these questions what is the purpose of imprisonment is there adequate focus on rehabilitation and for how long should one be incarcerated pending convictionrdquo she addedCompensation woesCiting eprison data from between July and October 2022 Valay Singh project lead of India Justice Report IJR New Delhi said that 391 out of the 1314 jails in the country were severely overcrowded having occupancy of 150 per cent or more ldquoMost of these inmates are undertrials many of whom are unable to post bail sureties Roughly 32 per cent of the more than 5 lakh inmates across India belong to socioeconomically weak SC and ST sections Other factors are lack of effective representation unwarranted arrests and reluctance to use alternate remedies The state does not offer compensation for long unjustified incarceration nor hold the systems actors to accountrdquo he addedDecongest prisonsSingh said the proposed bail fund idea needs to be urgently implemented across states This will help decongest prisons and ensure undertrials do not languish for want of bail sureties We also need to improve our data culture immensely so we can design the right interventionsrdquo he statedHe added that phase III of the eCourts project must also ensure that funds are utilised in an effective and transparent mannerThe haves and havenotsAdvocate Dinesh Tiwari who has been practising criminal law for over two decades said ldquoA number of undertrials are languishing in jail because of lack of family support or are financially weak They can be divided into two categories the haves and havenots A large number of prisoners fall into the latter category If this good intention is implemented on the ground and good officers extend support to all poor prisoners it will be a boonOf eCourts Advocate Tiwari said ldquoUnless the government and judiciary take outofthebox steps it will be not possible to clear pending cases We need to have the right mechanism to identify good judges and provide good infrastructure including artificial intelligence supportrdquoImplementation vitalAdvocate Rajeshwar Panchal who practises in the Bombay High Court said ldquoIt remains to be seen whether the decision is implemented in true spirit instead of being only on paper Such a decision would help lakhsrdquoHe welcomed the eCourt system but raised concerns about whether litigants and lawyers from humble backgrounds have the required infrastructure and computer literacyldquoThe system should be optional for time so that stakeholders learn with the passage of time A mandatory eCourt system may result in denial of access to justice if litigants and lawyers from rural and interior districts donrsquot have the resources to use the systemrdquo he said432crNo of cases pending in courts