EDITORIAL
When poverty prevents release, the justice system must examine its own procedures
The continued detention of 19 undertrials at the Central Jail in Colvale over their inability to pay surety amounts is a sad commentary on how poverty remains an obstacle to justice. The issue was highlighted in the Goa Human Rights Commission’s (GHRC) inspection report following a visit to the prison complex earlier this month. The commission found that the 19 prisoners had remained in custody despite bail being granted.
Taking serious note of the situation, the commission stressed that financial hardship should not become an obstacle to liberty for undertrial prisoners who have been granted bail. The commission said it would write to the Principal District and Sessions Judges of North and South Goa, requesting them to examine the cases with sympathy and compassion. It called for the cases to be examined to ensure that financial constraints do not unnecessarily prevent prisoners from securing their liberty. The finding highlights the difficulties economically disadvantaged prisoners may face in securing release even after obtaining bail. It also exposes a glaring structural flaw in the criminal justice system. The recommendations are part of the GHRC’s broader examination of inmates’ rights, living conditions, infrastructure and welfare measures at the Central Jail.
As per the normal procedure, once the bail order is pronounced, the matter stands disposed of. What follows is the filing of a bail bond, which secures the release of the accused. Perhaps there is no automated system in the jail administration to verify whether a person granted bail has been released. The undertrial could also continue to be detained in the absence of a local guarantor. This may be true if the applicant is from outside the state. The commission, comprising chairperson Justice Bharat Pandurang Deshpande and members Desmond D’Costa and Pramod Kamat, needs to be commended for its report and recommendations to improve the system in the jail and criminal jurisprudence. This will give great relief to those who have been granted bail but continue to be detained due to their inability to furnish sureties. Otherwise, it amounts to a human rights violation.
There could be a review to verify whether a person granted bail is still in custody. The Supreme Court had issued guidelines to prevent the continued incarceration of undertrials. In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (order dated January 31, 2023), the Supreme Court issued seven core directions to prevent the continued incarceration of undertrial prisoners and convicts despite their being granted bail due to poverty, inability to furnish sureties or administrative delays. If an accused remains in jail for seven days after being granted bail, jail authorities must automatically inform the trial court and the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA). The jail administration has a bigger role and needs to follow the apex court’s directions in letter and spirit. The Central and state governments have established dedicated funds under the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide financial assistance to poor undertrials who cannot pay nominal surety or fine amounts. Technology could be used to improve efficiency in this matter.
The commission also flagged concerns about the poor sewage system, overcrowding in some cells, overflowing overhead tanks and damaged mosquito nets in the jail, which houses over 700 inmates. Inmates complained of a persistent foul smell, causing discomfort and disturbing their sleep. The commission recommended the immediate cleaning of the sewage tanks and disinfection of the affected areas.
Hopefully, the jail authorities will implement the commission’s recommendations and take necessary measures to uphold humane and dignified living conditions for inmates.
