Prisons and Prisoners

Recently the prisons in India are put under a magnifying glass to show the conditions prevailing therein. The honorable court in exalted imperial Britain wanted to ensure that the culprit who was a willful defaulter to crores of rupees is comfortably interned in India. Even after the government of India gave assurances of the conditions the lawyers from defense demanded that there would be no natural light inside the prisons. In order to convince the court the government immediately took video of the rooms where the Hon’ble Mr. Mallya would be placed once he is allowed to be taken to India. It appears the court was convinced that Mr.Mallya, the defendant would be imprisoned legitimately. But the courts wanted to show humanitarian considerations and prove their credentials in that regard. After all, the defendant is not an ordinary person.

Unfortunately, the people at the higher strata of society also commit crimes and those crimes would be magnificient commensurate with their status. The system takes more care about the comforts available to them when they are imprisoned which happens rarely. After all, the law and rules are made by the people at higher levels. Naturally they take more care about their class. Punishment depends on the class of the criminal rather on the crime committed. The rule of law demands that all are equal before law but it is agreed that some are more equal.

The law of a country prevails within the boundaries of the country. But when the known culprit escapes and flies out of the country, it shows either laxity or inefficiency of the enforcing authorities or a clandestine understanding with them. But once the culprit escapes from the country he has to go to some other country as there is no place on earth which is not part of some country. If it is an imperial country like Britain it is more safe there than in other smaller countries. In such a case the government has to plead with that country to send back the culprit to face the law. Surprisingly that other country, Britain in this case, takes more care about the welfare and comforts of theoffender than the country of which he happens to be a citizen. Either because of civility or because of some agreement with the country they could not refuse to extradite the person. For that purpose India had to take all the trouble to prove before the imperial powers that the person whose extradition is sought has really committed a crime which deserves punishment. That is in addition to the trouble taken before the courts of the own country itself.

After it is agreed that the person shall be extradited, it is usual for the foreign country to ascertain whether the person would be given death punishment. It has become popular to claim that death penalty is inhuman and extradition can be denied if the death penalty is to be imposed. An assurance would be sought that such punishment would not be given in that case even if the law of the land demands it. In this case such danger does not arise as corruption and money laundering are not crimes to attract death penalty. Even then, for their own reasons, the courts in Britain tried to show more care about the culprit than they show about their own citizens.  They want to ensure about the comforts that would be available to the prisoner under the conditions prevailing therein.

Recent inspection reports revealed the horrible conditions prevailing in the British prisons – blood, vomit, cockroaches, rats, air thick with drugs, staff hiding in fear of violent prisoners..It is also reported that “It is virtually impossible for journalists to visit prisons except for a rare manicured walk-about with a minister.” That is the condition in prisons of UK. Columnists like Polly Toynbee have reported the same in the media and there had been wide discussion about it. There are allegations that the inhuman conditions resulted in psychological derangements of prisoners also. The conditions in prisons for women are more horrible, they say. There is no humane treatment of children held with mothers. That is the condition prevailing in most of the 102 prisons run by the government and 14 prisons run by the private organisations.  Yes, private organisations are allowed to run prisons. Is it not dereliction of duty of a government? Can we in India think of entrusting prisoners to the care of private organisations?  There have been street demonstrations with placards demanding “Save British Justice.”

But the judiciary of that country insists that the offender shall be lodged in a prison to reflect the social status and capitalist rank of the culprit. Anybody can understand the minimum or reasonable comforts that could be made available. But what is the limit for luxuries that can be demanded? Demanding proof of availability of natural light shows the hypocrisy of the judicial system there.  Perhaps they expect ‘homely’ comforts in prison. We must be grateful for they did not object to imprisonment itself.

It is not that the officers and lawyers presenting the case on behalf of India before the Hon’ble court in Britain are not aware of the conditions prevailing there. But they cannot afford to prejudice the court by raising such awkward questions. They have to get things done. They had to make a video of ten minutes to show the court and convince them that the  offender would be given all the comforts commensurate with his status, in spite of the fact that he committed a crime. That is how law is made and practiced.