This document discusses the importance of prison visitors in ensuring the well-being and humane treatment of prisoners. It notes that visitors can help ensure prisoners' physical and mental health is maintained, transparency and accountability in the prison system, and help prisoners reintegrate into society upon release. The document also discusses the types of visitors, including official visitors, non-official visitors, lawyers, and family/friends. It cites laws and cases that emphasize the role of visitors in monitoring conditions and healthcare in prisons.

1. - Ritu Kumar, Advocate

2. 1. In the cover of obscurity and low visibility, fundamental
human rights like right to life, health, dignity of a person can
be easily violated and denied.
2. Segregation of ‘offenders’ from the society can lead to social
and psychological problems which can seriously impact the
mental and physical well being of a person.
3. While in custody a person cannot choose the doctor or
hospital where he can get his treatment and the kind of
treatment, therefore doctors have undue powers over the
person’s well being.
4. With overcrowding and unhygienic conditions diseases
contagious can easily spread.

3. 1. Visiting doctors and committees are important to ensure
that regular health check-ups are done.
2. Hygienic conditions and sanitisation of the environment is
relevant.
3. Affiliation with specialised hospitals and doctors for proper
treatment.

4. 1. By interacting with a visitor inside the prison is the only
way a person in custody can interact with the society.
2. Visitors can ensure transparency, accountability and
monitoring in the prison administration system.
3. Visitors can ensure that a person’s physical and mental
health is maintained while in custody.
4. Visitors can help the person to enhance his skills and be
productive once released from the jail.
5. Visitors can help address any specific issues faced by the
persons under custody.

5. 1. Official Visitors
2. Non-Official Visitors
3. Lawyers
4. Family and Friends

6. The Prisons Act, 1894
Section 59 (25) Power to make rules-
25. for the appointment and guidance of visitors of
prisons.
The Indian Jail Committee, 1919-20,–
The person selected for the position of a non-official visitor of a
jail should be chosen on the ground of definite qualifications,
such as an interest in prison matters or other social work, or
ability and willingness to assist in finding work for prisoners on
release. …… Selection should not be made solely on the ground of
social position, wealth or political influence, but on the basis of
special fitness…. (515 – Report of the IJC- 19-20)

7. Prison Manual of Maharashtra, Chapter XV, Rule 6 –
Prison Visitors
‘Appointment of Non-official Visitors’
The appointment of non-official visitors (other than members of the
Maharashtra Legislature) shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule
(4), be made by the State Government from amongst persons who in
its opinion, are interested in the administration of prisons and
are likely to take interest in the prisoners and their welfare both
while they are in prison and after their release.

8. Prison Rules provide for the constitution of ‘Board of Visitors’
through the office of the District Magistrate/Divisional
Commissioner. The purpose of the constitution of these Boards is –
1.To regulate prison visits by official and non-official visitors through
the ‘roster of visitors’.
2.To ensure at least one visit of the prison per month by an agency
other than the officials of the department.
3.To involve all persons nominated as official or non-official visitors
and to give each one of them some occasions of visiting prison.
4.To provide a forum for discussing problems of prisons and prisoners
outside the intervention of the prison department.

9. Sanjay Suri v. Delhi Administration, 1988 Supp. SCC 169
The Supreme Court observed:
“The Visitor’s Board should consist of cross-sections of society:
people with good background social activities, people
connected with the news media, lady social workers, jurists,
retired public officers from the judiciary as also the executive.
The Sessions Judge should be given an acknowledged position
as a visitor and his visits should not be routine ones. Full care
should be taken by him to have a real picture of the defects in
the administration qua the resident prisoners and under trials.”

10. “The visitors of jails include senior executive officers of the Division, Sessions
Judges and District Magistrates (see rule 47). This is ordinarily an All India
pattern. The duties of official visitors include satisfying themselves that the
provisions of the Prisons Act, rules, regulations, orders and directions are
duly observed. Undoubtedly, the proper adherence to S. 56 and the related
rules falls within the purview of 'rule’49 . 'Rule‘ 53 states that all visitors shall
have the opportunity of observing the state of jail, its management and every
prisoner confined therein. The visitors, official and non-official, have power
to call for and inspect jail records.”
“All institutions that hold people against their wishes need outside
supervision, for, by definition, they lack the internal checks and balances that
make such supervision unnecessary elsewhere. One can check out of a hotel if
abused, but not out of a prison. Prison staffs, which unlike hotel staffs, can
also totally circumscribe the activities of inmates-have extensive coercive
power that must be checked by an outside authority if it is not to be abused.
While sharing the, purposes of the penal system, the outside authority should
be altogether independent of the management of the institutions it is to
super vise and of its personnel.”

11. “Jail visitors have no powers to cancel the superintendent's orders nor
obligation to hold enquiry save to pity and to make remarks.
Periodical parades prisoners, when the visitors or dignitaries call for a
turn-out, prove a circus in a zoo from a practical standpoint or/and
journal entries and history-tickets a voodoo according to rule, the key
point to be noted being that after this public exhibition within the
prison, the complaining prisoners are marked men at the iron mercy
of the hierarchy, there being no active legal aid project busy within
the prison. This ferocious rule of law and rule, cannot be sustained as
anything but arbitrary, unreasonable and procedurally heartless. The
peril to its life from the lethal stroke of Articles 14, 19 and 21 read with
13 needs no far-fetched argument.”

12. A challenge was made to a prison rule which permitted only one
interview in a month with the members of the family or legal advisor.
The interview with the legal advisor was to be held after obtaining
permission of the District Magistrate, Delhi, and in the presence of an
officer of Customs/Central Excise/Enforcement. The rule was held
violative of Article s 14 and 21.
The SC held, “We are of the view that a detenu must be permitted to
have atleast two interviews in a week with relatives and friends and it
should be possible for a relative or friend to have interview with the
detenu at any reasonable hour on obtaining permission from the
Superintendent of the Jail and it should not be necessary to seek the
permission of the District Magistrate, Delhi, as the latter procedure
would be cumbrous and unnecessary from the point of view of
security and hence unreasonable. “

13. “We think that it would be quite reasonable if a detenu were to
be entitled to have interview with his legal adviser at any
reasonable hour during the day after taking appointment from
the Superintendent of the Jail, which appointment should be
given by the Superintendent without any avoidable delay. We
may add that the interview need not necessarily take place in
the presence of a nominated officer of Customs/Central
Excise/Enforcement but if the presence of such officer can be
conveniently secured at the time of the interview without
involving any postponement of the interview, then such officer
and if his presence cannot be so secured, then any other Jail
official may, if thought necessary, watch the interview but not
as to be within hearing distance of the detenu and the legal
adviser.”

14. Neglect of health and hygiene
“35. The Mulla Committee has dealt with this aspect in Chapter 6 and
7 of its Report, a perusal of which shows the pathetic position in
which most of the jails are placed insofar as hygienic conditions are
oncerned. most of them also lack proper facilities for treatment of
prisoners. The recommendations of the Committee in this regard are
to be found in Chapter 29. We have nothing useful to add except
pointing out that society has an obligation towards prisoners' health
for two reasons. First, the prisoners do not enjoy the access to
medical expertise that free citizens have. Their incarceration places
limitations on such access; no physician of choice, no second
opinions, and few if any specialists. Secondly, because of the
condition son their incarceration, inmates are exposed to more health
hazards than free citizens. Prisoners therefore, suffer from a double
handicap.”

15. Streamlining of jail visits
41. Prison visits fall into three categories: (1) relatives and friends; (2)
professionals; and (3) lay persons. In the first category comes the spouse.
Visit by him/her has special significance because a research undertaken on
Indian prisoners sometime back showed that majority of them were in the
age group of 18 to 34, which shows that most of them were young and were
perhaps having a married life before their imprisonment. For such persons,
denial of conjugal life during the entire period of incarceration creates
emotional problems also. Visits by a spouse is, therefore, of great importance.
42. …in many jails facilities available to the visitors are degrading. At many
places even privacy is not maintained. If the offenders and visitors are
screened, the same emphasises their separation rather than retaining
common bonds and interests. There is then urgent need to streamline these
visits.
44. As to visits by professionals, i.e. the lawyer, the same has to be guaranteed
to the required extent, if the prisoner be a pre-trial detainee, in view of the
right conferred by Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

16. The case brought into sharp focus the pitiable state of jails in
the State of M.P. The callous behaviour of doctors,
maltreatment by jail staff and tampering of jail records came up
for judicial scrutiny. All this went on for years with the Visitors’
Committee apparently oblivious of it all.
The Court directed a thorough probe into the matter against
those found to be remiss or negligent in their duty, and
criminal prosecution against those found to be guilty.