The primary purpose of building prisons is to reform individuals who, due to circumstances, environment, or emotional turmoil, have stepped into the world of crime. The aim is to provide a space where such individuals can reflect and be reformed away from the mainstream society. The purpose of punishment is not merely punitive but corrective. However, looking at the condition of Indian prisons, it is evident that this objective is far from being achieved, and instead, prisons in the country are in a state of crisis. These are places where individuals, who have strayed from the path of responsible citizenship, are treated like sheep and goats.
This reality has been highlighted in the India Justice Report 2025. As of 2022, prisons built to house 4.36 lakh inmates were actually accommodating 5.73 lakh inmates — 131% of the intended capacity. It is estimated that by 2030, the prison population may reach 6.6 lakh, which will significantly exceed the estimated capacity of 5.15 lakh. Undoubtedly, this is a crisis far deeper than expected and can rightfully be called a human rights emergency for the prisoners.
But the problem isn’t just overcrowding. In reality, for the entire prison population, there are only 25 mental health professionals. Since 2012, the number of inmates suffering from mental illnesses has reportedly doubled. Most of these prisoners are undertrials — their crimes have not yet been proven. They are paying the price of the delay in judicial processes.
On the other hand, medical facilities in prisons are equally lacking. Around 43% of the positions for medical officers are vacant, which reflects the systemic flaws. Due to a lack of proper care, many inmates are forced to endure both physical and mental suffering. Yet, despite this grave issue, there have been no serious efforts made to address it.
Neglecting the interests of prisoners is, unfortunately, not new. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly emphasized the need for long-term prison planning. However, the actions of the government and administration remain either slow or show an apathetic attitude toward these problems. A sensitive approach must be adopted considering the human rights of the prisoners. One of the biggest problems is the massive shortage of staff — in some regions, 60% of the sanctioned posts for correctional staff are vacant. For instance, prisons in Delhi are operating at over 250% of their capacity.
Another glaring inconsistency is that a majority of the inmates belong to marginalized and deprived communities. According to recent statistics, two-thirds of the inmates in Indian prisons are Dalits, Adivasis, and Other Backward Classes (OBCs); 19% are Muslims; and out of 4.66 lakh inmates, 66% are either illiterate or have not studied beyond Class 10. In terms of states, Uttar Pradesh has the highest number of Muslim and Dalit inmates, while Madhya Pradesh has the highest proportion of tribal prisoners.
Following the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)’s exclusion of caste and religion data in its 2016 and 2017 reports, the 2018 data for convicts and undertrials still reflected similar trends as 2015: 33.49% OBCs, 20.68% Scheduled Castes, 11.56% Scheduled Tribes, and 18.81% Muslims.
Among the 4.66 lakh inmates, Hindu prisoners number 3.12 lakh, followed by Muslims (87,673), Sikhs (16,989), and Christians (13,886). The recent reports show that Indian prisons remain overcrowded, and the situation is worsening. In 2018, the prison population reached 117.6% (4.66 lakh) of capacity, up from 115.1% (4.50 lakh) in 2017, 113.7% (4.33 lakh) in 2016, and 114.4% (4.19 lakh) in 2015. At the end of 2018, the total capacity of Indian prisons was 3.96 lakh — it was 3.91 lakh in 2017, 3.8 lakh in 2016, and 3.6 lakh in 2015.
Uttar Pradesh has the highest number of Muslim inmates at 27,459 (31.31% of all Muslim prisoners in the country), followed by West Bengal (8,401), and Karnataka (2,798). Caste-wise analysis reveals 1.56 lakh OBC prisoners, 96,420 Dalits, and 53,916 Adivasis. In terms of education, 66.51% of prisoners are either illiterate (1.33 lakh) or have studied only up to Class 10 (1.76 lakh). Uttar Pradesh has the highest number of Scheduled Caste inmates at 24,489 (25.39%), followed by Madhya Pradesh (8,935) and Karnataka (2,803). Madhya Pradesh also has the highest number of tribal inmates at 15,500, followed by Chhattisgarh (6,890) and Karnataka (1,254).
Looking at the disproportionately high number of Dalits, Adivasis, backward classes, and Muslims in prisons, one might wrongly assume that these communities are more prone to committing crimes. In reality, this assumption is fundamentally incorrect. These communities are often the poorest in India, and even for minor offenses, they cannot afford legal representation or find someone to post bail, leading to prolonged incarceration. Another major reason is the bias of law enforcement agencies against these communities, making it harder for them to secure bail, while the wealthy can easily do so with the help of top lawyers.
There’s another side to this: caste-based discrimination within prisons, including in the allocation of work — some of which is even codified in the prison manual. This reflects the deep-rooted inequalities within the justice system. Furthermore, there appears to be a lack of the political will needed to confront this crisis.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly issued directives to prioritize the issues of prisoners, and these need to be implemented seriously. Reducing the number of undertrial prisoners through fast-track courts and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can bring significant improvements to the prison system. There is an urgent need to invest in prison infrastructure to manage the increasing number of inmates and to take steps to provide easy legal aid to the marginalized communities.
Prisons should not be places of prolonged punishment but centers for reform. The success of any democracy lies in how respectfully it treats its prisoners and how sensitively it addresses their needs. If we do so, we are not doing them a favor — we are simply upholding their constitutional rights.
Comments