At the very onset of the global spread of COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare observers categorised the population under detention as one of the most vulnerable categories of people prone to the risk of contracting and spreading the virus. The World Health Organisation (WHO), drew the attention of world leaders to the “heightened vulnerability of prisoners and urged them to take all appropriate public health measures in respect of this vulnerable population”.
Prisons in India witnessed the spread of the virus soon after the first wave began in 2020. With their crowded spaces and inadequate healthcare facilities, Indian prisons were always at a higher risk of becoming epicentres for the spread of the COVID virus. Taking cognizance of the matter, the Supreme Court of India took steps as early as March 2020 (order dated 23-03-20) and directed measures to all states and UTs for reducing overcrowding in prisons. The court directed states/ UTs to constitute a High Powered Committee (HPC) to determine the categories of prisoners to be released on interim bail/ parole or furlough to reduce overcrowding in prisons. However, with a relative ease in the spread of the virus in India, those who were released were compelled to return back to their respective prisons by February-March 2021.
With the onset of the second wave of the pandemic, the Supreme Court again took cognizance of the situation and passed an order [Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1/2021] dated 8th May 2021. In its order the court directed:
Direction 1: to strictly control and limit the authorities from arresting accused in contravention of guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar;
Direction 2: The High Powered Committees to consider release of prisoners by adopting the guidelines (such as inter alia, SOP laid down by NALSA) followed by them last year, at the earliest;
Direction 3: the High Powered Committee, in addition to considering fresh release, should forthwith release all the inmates who had been released earlier pursuant to our order 23.03.2020, by imposing appropriate conditions;
Direction 4: those inmates who were granted parole, pursuant to earlier orders, to be again granted a parole for a period of 90 days;
Direction 5: all the decisions of High Powered Committees need to be published on respective State Legal Service Authorities/State Governments/High Courts websites in order to enable effective dissemination of information;
Direction 6: the authorities need to be considerate to the concerns of the inmates who may not be willing to be released in view of their social background and the fear of becoming victims of the deadly virus;
Direction 7: authorities to ensure that proper medical facilities are provided to all prisoners who are imprisoned;
Direction 8: Appropriate steps shall be taken for transportation of the released inmates of the prisons, if necessary, in view of the curfews and lockdown in some States.
Following this order of the apex court, States and UTs have again recommended the release of inmates and the process of releases has also begun in some states.
Concerned about the situation and with the aim to assess the implementation of the directions of the Supreme Court, CHRI started compiling real-time data on the number of positive cases and COVID related fatalities in prisons. Apart from that, by tracking orders issued by the HPCs across states, CHRI compiled data on the categories of prisoners identified for release and the estimated vs actual number of releases across the country. All compiled data is based on the information available in public domain. You may refer to the tables below:
Table A: State/UT wise number of positive cases of prisoners and prison staff in the second wave of the pandemic starting 1st March 2021 till present
Name of State |
Number of COVID-19 positive cases in prisons |
COVID related deaths |
||
Inmates |
Prison Staff |
Inmates |
Prison Staff |
|
Andhra Pradesh |
||||
Assam |
||||
Bihar |
||||
Chhattisgarh |
||||
Delhi |
||||
Goa |
|
|
||
Gujarat |
||||
Haryana |
||||
Jammu and Kashmir |
||||
Jharkhand |
||||
Karnataka |
||||
Kerala |
||||
Madhya Pradesh |
||||
Maharashtra* |
||||
Mizoram |
||||
Odisha |
||||
Punjab |
||||
Rajasthan |
||||
Tamil Nadu |
||||
Telangana |
||||
Tripura |
||||
Uttarakhand |
||||
Uttar Pradesh* |
||||
West Bengal |
|
|
|
|
Chandigarh |
||||
Puducherry |
||||
Total |
5,960 |
646 |
28 |
6 |
Table B: State/UT wise number of prison staff and prisoners vaccinated
State |
Number of staff vaccinated |
Number of Inmates Vaccinated |
Data as on |
|||
|
First Dose |
Second Dose |
First Dose |
Second Dose |
|
|
Andhra Pradesh |
20th June 2021 |
|||||
Arunachal Pradesh |
|
|
31st July 2021 |
|||
Assam |
|
15th July 2021 |
||||
Bihar |
|
30th June 2021 |
||||
Chhattisgarh |
|
|
|
13th May 2021 |
||
Delhi (Tihar)* |
1700 approx. (85% of the total staff which is more than 2000) |
|
|
29th August 2021 |
||
Goa |
|
|
8th June 2021 |
|||
Haryana |
2,685 (82.2%) |
|
|
11th May 2021 |
||
Jammu and Kashmir |
|
|
|
19th May 2021 |
||
Jharkhand |
|
Approx. (90% of total no. of prisoners, which is around 21500) |
3rd September 2021 |
|||
Karnataka |
|
|
|
2nd June 2021 |
||
Kerala |
|
|
|
29th June 2021 |
||
Madhya Pradesh |
|
|
5th July 2021 |
|||
Maharashtra |
|
|
12th July 2021 |
|||
Meghalaya |
|
|
|
15th June 2021 |
||
Nagaland |
|
|
|
10th June 2021 |
||
Odisha |
|
|
2nd June 2021 |
|||
Punjab |
|
|
11th May 2021 |
|||
Sikkim |
|
|
|
3rd July 2021 |
||
Tamil Nadu |
|
|
|
4th June 2021 |
||
Telangana |
|
|
8th July 2021 |
|||
Tripura |
|
|
14th July 2021 |
|||
Uttar Pradesh |
|
21st May 2021 |
||||
Uttarakhand |
|
|
|
17th June 2021 |
||
West Bengal |
|
|
|
|||
Total |
17,897 |
1,078 |
1,77,071 |
85,443 |
Table C: State/UT wise number of prisoners released on interim bail and parole across the country during the second wave
Name of the State |
Total number of Prisons |
Sanctioned Prison Capacity |
Actual Prison Population |
Occupancy Rate |
Categories of prisoners identified for release by the HPCs in the second wave |
Number of prisoners released |
Andhra Pradesh |
79 |
6,905 |
79% |
The court's order dated 30th May, 2021, directed that: the undertrial prisoners and convicts booked for offences punishable with not more than 7 years to be released on interim bail for a period of 90 days. Such people to remain in home isolation under the surveillance of either a doctor or the police. Prisoners booked for a second time, and for committing offences under section 376 I.P.C, 395 I.P.C, 397 I.P.C, and the POCSO Act to be left out of the ambit of this direction of release. |
||
Assam |
31 |
(as on 15th June 2021) |
110% |
|
||
Bihar |
59 |
(as on 7th June 2021) |
133% |
-Punishment of not more than 7 years, those eligible for release under 436A CrPC, |
16,864 |
|
Chhattisgarh |
33 |
|
(as on 31st December 2019 as per PSI 2019 data) |
150% |
|
3166 (as on 6th June 2021) |
Delhi |
10 |
(as on 15th May 2021) |
200% |
1. Inmates undergoing Civil Imprisonment; |
2800 |
|
Goa |
Colvale prison data |
(as on 16th July 2021) |
73% |
-Those prisoners who were released in 2020 with sentence of 7 years or less and 13 additional prisoners who are eligible for current pandemic to be released on parole for a period of 30 days. -40 prisoners undergoing life sentence and 16 prisoners undergoing a sentence of seven years and above to be released on parole on a case to case basis. |
(as on 16th July 2021) |
|
Gujarat |
27 |
15,089 |
109% |
- Inmates undergoing trial for an offence punishable up to 7 years or less and the case is exclusively triable by judicial magistrate. |
1534 |
|
Himachal Pradesh |
14 |
2,494 |
103% |
-Convicts out on parole at present to be granted a further extension of 90 days, |
245 |
|
Jharkhand |
30 |
130% |
-Prisoners with no or less criminal antecedence, |
(as on 4th July 2021) |
||
Karnataka |
102 |
(as on 31st December 2019 as per PSI 2019 data) |
101% |
-UTP detained under sections 107, 108, 109 and 151 IPC. |
1120 |
|
Madhya Pradesh |
123 |
29,525 |
146% |
-Under trial prisoners who are facing trials exclusively triable by the court of Magistrate to be considered by the concerned courts on case to case basis. |
||
Maharashtra |
150 |
145% |
-Prisoners who fall in the category |
(as on 6th June 2021) |
||
Nagaland |
11 |
(as on 12th May 2021) |
31% |
|
||
Odisha |
91 |
19,824 |
99% |
Criteria for UTPs to be decided by the UTRC |
||
Tamil Nadu |
142 |
(as on 15th June 2021) |
60% |
|
|
|
Telangana |
46 |
(as on 11th May, 2021) |
(as on 11th May, 2021) |
86% |
As mentioned in point 14 on page 22 of the pdf, Telangana prisons are not facing overcrowding at the moment. |
|
Uttar Pradesh |
67 |
1,10384 |
183% |
(as on June 2021) |
Table D: State/UT wise status of publishing all decisions of the High Powered Committee on the respective State Legal Service Authorities/ State Governments/ High Courts websites
State |
Date of the meeting |
Websites on which the minutes are uploaded |
Andhra Pradesh |
|
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) |
Arunachal Pradesh |
Website of the Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench
|
|
Assam |
|
Assam SLSA |
Bihar |
|
Patna High Court Bihar SLSA |
Chhattisgarh |
Chhattisgarh SLSA |
|
Delhi |
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee |
|
Goa |
|
Goa SLSA |
Gujarat |
Gujarat SLSA |
|
Haryana |
|
Haryana SLSA |
Himachal Pradesh |
High Court Website Himachal Pradesh SLSA |
|
Jammu & Kashmir |
J&K SLSA |
|
Jharkhand |
6th July 2021
|
Jharkhand SLSA |
Karnataka |
29th April 2021
|
Karnataka SLSA |
Kerala |
Kerala SLSA |
|
Madhya Pradesh |
12th May 2021
|
MP Prisons Website MP SLSA |
Maharashtra |
Maharashtra SLSA |
|
Manipur |
|
Manipur SLSA |
Mizoram |
Mizoram SLSA |
|
Nagaland |
Nagaland SLSA |
|
Odisha |
8th May 2021
|
Odisha SLSA |
Punjab |
Punjab SLSA |
|
Rajasthan |
|
Rajasthan SLSA |
Tamil Nadu |
|
|
Telangana |
Telangana SLSA |
|
Tripura |
Tripura SLSA |
|
Uttar Pradesh |
UP SLSA |
|
Uttarakhand |
|
Uttarakhand SLSA |
West Bengal |
West Bengal SLSA |
|
Chandigarh |
Chandigarh SLSA |
Table E: Details of cases/writ petitions pending in various High Court on prison related issues and key directions issued in regard to release of prisoners, access to medical facilities and other covid related issues
S.No. |
Name of the High Court |
Case Title |
Summary the High Court Orders |
1 |
Allahabad High Court |
In Re
|
(6 April,2020) To meet the eventualities that occurred as a consequence of the lockdown imposed to arrest the spread of coronavirus, the court ordered that all accused-applicants whose bail application were allowed on or after 15 March, 2020 but had not been released due to non-availability of sureties amid the lockdown, may be released on execution of personal bonds provided the accused-applicants undertake to furnish the required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release.
|
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 564 of 2020 |
24th April 2021: All Courts in the state of UP over which the HC has power of superintendence that was subsisting on 15th March 2021 shall extend to 31st May, 2021. Criminal courts that granted bail orders to accused that were to expire before 31st May 2021 are to now expire on 31st May 2021. |
||
2 |
Andhra Pradesh High Court |
1.In re, contagion of covid virus in prisons in the State of Andhra Pradesh
|
1. 26 March, 2020:The court ordered that in criminal matters where bail/suspension had been granted by the court either anticipatory or regular for a limited period, which are likely to expire within one month from the day, were to be automatically extended for a further period of one month. |
2. In re: extension of interim orders in view of current covid 19 Pandemic |
2. All the interim orders passed by courts/ tribunals subordinate to the HC as subsisting on 21st April, 2021 shall now extend till 30th June 2021. |
||
3 |
Bombay High Court |
1. High Court on its own Motion v. State of Maharashtra
|
1. 23 April, 2020: The Bombay High Court directed the HPC to decide whether the distinction made between prisoners/undertrials accused under IPC and those under special enactments like MPID, MCOCA, NDPS, PMLA, UAPA etc for release on parole due to the pandemic of Covid-19, is discriminatory. |
2.Faruk Khan and ors. V. State of Maharashtra and ors.
|
2. 14 September, 2020:The Bombay High Court held that those prisoners or undertrials who have already been granted emergency parole as per notification dated May 8 for decongestion of prisons in view of the coronavirus, need not apply for extension of parole once the initial 45 day period is over. |
||
3.People’s Union Civil Liberties and ors. V. State of Maharashtra and ors. |
3. 12 June, 2020 |
||
4 |
Calcutta High Court |
1. In Re: Overcrowding in Prison
|
1. (24 March, 2020) |
2. The Hon’ble Court’s in its Own Motion v. State of West Bengal |
2. (31 March, 2020) The High Court asked for the compliance of the recommendations that the HPC came up with to reduce overcrowding in prisons after its first meeting on 27 March, 2020. |
||
5 |
Chhattisgarh High Court |
Suo Moto v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. |
(30 March 2020)
|
6 |
Delhi High Court |
1. Natasha Narwal v. State of NCT Delhi
|
1. 5th May 2021: In the order dated 5th May, 2021 the court ordered that, tele-calling by prisoners be extended to pre-paid numbers as long as the number is verified and belongs to a relative of the prisoner. Covid positive inmates to be given the facility of calling family every day for five minutes to update them of their health. Counselling to be given to prisoners on benefits of vaccination. Prison ID to be used in place of Aadhar and Pan Card for registration on portal. Where an inmate doesn't have their own mobile number, they are permitted to use the number of their close relatives for the purpose of registration. Vaccines for the age group 18-44, about 279 inmates, to be procured by jail superintendent within 15-30 days. Duration of E-mulaqaats to be extended from 15 minutes to 30 minutes on a weekly basis. |
2.(23 March, 2020) c. Introduce “emergency parole” (parole for up to eight weeks in one spell). |
|||
3. The Court on its own motion v. state of Delhi
|
3. 9 April, 2020: The High Court ordered that all bail orders, passed by the court or by the court’s subordinate to it, on or before 7 April, 2020, in pursuance whereto the undertrial prisons had not been released on bail owing to failure to satisfy the condition of furnishing surety bond, were to be modified to be read as granting bail without the condition of furnishing surety bond and instead allowing such undertrial prisoners to be released on furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of Superintendent of Jail.
|
||
4. Virender vs State (Gnct) Of Delhi)
|
4. (6 July 2021)
|
||
7 |
Gujarat High Court |
(27 March, 2020) |
|
8 |
Guwahati High Court |
1. Lawyers Association, Guwahati v. State of Assam
|
1.The court in its order of 7th May, directed that people working at Juvenile Justice Homes and Child Care Centres to be treated as frontline workers for the purpose of vaccination
|
2. List of female prisoners lodged with children under the age of six to be forwarded by the State Government to the HPC for consideration of release |
|||
3. Guwahati v. The State of Assam and ors. PIL(Suo Moto) 4/2020 |
3. 23 July, 2020: The Gauhati High Court registered a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding the rising cases of COVID-19 in Assam prisons. The court sought information regarding the number of COVID-19 positive cases, the precautionary steps that were taken, the process of disinfecting the prisons and the treatment being provided to jail inmates. It directed that the best of the measures available with the state of Assam be employed to give qualitative treatment to the jail inmates across the state so that no further damage is caused. The court also directed that the persons who had not tested positive for Covid-19 be segregated and be maintained as such so that the disease is not transmitted to them. And that, all the jail inmates in Assam be tested for COVID-19. |
||
9 |
Karnataka High Court |
(3 September, 2020) |
|
10 |
Madhya Pradesh High Court |
1.(IN REFERENCE (SUO MOTU) Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS)
|
1. In the 10th May 2021 order, the Court gave the following directions: |
2. Lal Singh Adiwasi v. State of Madhya Pradesh |
2.(13th July 2021)
|
||
3. Vishnu Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
|
3.(13th July 2021) |
||
4. Manmeet Singh vs The State Of M.P.
|
4.(6 July 2021) |
||
5. Madhuri Krishnaswami v. State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors. |
5.(29 June, 2020)
|
||
11 |
Madras High Court |
(3 April, 2020) |
|
12 |
Orissa High Court |
Order of the court dated, 28th April, 2021 directed that the absence of Aadhar card and other identity cards required for registration on COWIN portal not to be a ground for denying vaccination to any prisoner. State Government to come up with an alternate arrangement to include all prisoners not having Aadhar. |
|
13 |
Punjab & Haryana High Court |
1.Ishu Grover @Ishu @Golu v. U.T., Chandigarh and another
|
1.(30 March, 2020)
|
2. Sandeep Jogi vs State Of Haryana
|
2. (9 July 2021)
|
||
14. |
Manipur High Court
|
Digitally Signed By vs The State Of Manipur Through The Officer-in Charge, Women Police Station |
(8th July 2021) |
15 |
Uttarakhand High Court |
The court order of 6th May 2021, directed the Jail Department and Home Secretary to ensure drastic increase in inoculation of prisoners, preferably within a month of passing of this order. RT-PCR test to be conducted while releasing the prisoner so as to avoid releasing prisoners who are positive. HPCs to consider cases of undertrials and prisoners convicted for offences punishable with less than 7 years’ time. HPC is to meet every month and make recommendations from time to time. I.G. Prison to inform the Chairman of the Bar Council of Uttarakhand about E-Mulakaat. I.G. Prison also to ensure availability of proper hardware and software to facilitate prisoners to communicate with their counsels through E-Mulakaat. Counsel for the State directed to file a report on the implementation of this order within three weeks of passing of the order. |
Table F: State/UT wise number of positive cases of prisoners and prison staff in the first wave of the pandemic
Name of State |
Number of COVID-19 cases in prisons (Inmates and staff) |
Deaths |
Andhra Pradesh |
||
Assam |
|
|
Bihar |
||
Chhattisgarh |
|
|
Delhi |
||
Goa |
|
|
Gujarat |
|
|
Haryana |
|
|
Jammu and Kashmir |
|
|
Jharkhand |
|
|
Karnataka |
|
|
Kerala |
||
Madhya Pradesh |
|
|
Maharashtra |
||
Odisha |
|
|
Punjab |
|
|
Puducherry |
|
|
Rajasthan |
|
|
Tamil Nadu |
|
|
Tripura |
|
|
Uttar Pradesh |
||
Uttarakhand |
|
|
West Bengal |
|
|
18157 |
17 |
^Note: The numbers depicted are from media reports. The number represents COVID-19 positive cases of both prison staff and inmates inside prisons.
Table G: Data on the categories of prisoners identified for release and the estimated vs actual number of releases across the country during the first wave of pandemic *
Name of State |
Total No. of Prisons and Prison Population* |
Occupancy Rate* |
Categories of prisoners identified for release by the High Powered Committee |
Release and Change in Occupancy Rate |
||
Estimates for release of prisoners reported |
Actual number of prisoners released |
Change in Occupancy Rate (E= Estimate) (A= Actual) |
||||
Andhra Pradesh |
7579 prisoners in 112 prisons |
86.2% |
Prisoners who are under trial or convicted of offences for which the punishment is not more than 7 years, except (Read More):
|
15.4% (E) 5.3% (A) |
||
Arunachal Pradesh |
247 prisoners in 1 prison |
106.0% |
In compliance with the order of the Supreme Court dated 23-03-2020. (Read More) The categories to be determined on:
|
No Information (N.I) |
19.7% (A) |
|
Assam |
9226 prisoners in 31 prisons |
103.8% |
In compliance with the order of the Supreme Court dated 23-03-2020. (Read More)
|
33.2% (E) |
||
Bihar |
39814 prisoners in 58 prisons |
94.3% |
In compliance with the order of the Supreme Court dated 23-03-2020. (Read More)
|
1% (A) |
||
Chhattisgarh |
18112 prisoners in 28 prisons |
150.1% |
|
28.4% |
||
Goa |
518 prisoners in 3 prison |
83 % |
|
7.1%(E) 7.4% (A) |
||
Gujarat |
15089 prisoners in 27 prisons |
109.6% |
N.I |
N.I |
18.8% (E) |
|
Haryana |
20423 prisoners in 19 prisons |
105.8 % |
|
16.2% (E) 26.7% (A) |
||
Himachal Pradesh |
2373 prisoners in 14 prisons |
110.6 % |
N.I |
N.I |
4.2% (A) |
|
Jharkhand |
18654 prisoners in 28 prisons |
111.1 % |
N.I |
N.I |
5.4% (A) |
|
Karnataka |
14515 prisoners in 102 prisons |
101.4 % |
Prisoners serving sentences for offences punishable upto seven years or less. Also prisoners who have not been awarded the maximum punishment for the offences convicted for. Except those imprisoned for:
|
10.1% (E) 8.1% (A) |
||
Kerala |
7499 prisoners in 54 prisons |
109.6 % |
All prisoners (Remand and Undertrials) accused in only one offence punishable upto seven years, except:
|
14.7% (E) 26.9% (A) |
||
Madhya Pradesh |
44603 prisoners in 123 prisons |
155.3 % |
Undertrials who have been accused of a crime punishable for a period of five years. (Read More) |
42% (E) 23% (A) |
||
Maharashtra |
36798 prisoners in 150 prisons |
152.7 % |
N.I |
50% (E) 43.9% (A) |
||
Manipur |
876 prisoners in 5 prisons |
68.9 % |
N.I |
N.I |
14.2% (A) |
|
Meghalaya |
1023 prisoners in 4 prisons |
157.4 % |
N.I |
26.8% (E) 14.5% (A) |
||
Mizoram |
1698 prisoners in 7 prisons |
106.1 % |
N.I |
21.1% (E) 17.9% (A) |
||
Nagaland |
446 prisoners in 11 prisons |
30.8 % |
N.I |
N.I |
5% (A) |
|
Odisha |
17563 prisoners in 91 prisons |
91 % |
All convicts in prisons who:
|
9.0% (E) 5.0% (A) |
||
Punjab |
24174 prisoners in 26 prisons |
102.9% |
N.I |
25.5% (E) 30.6% (A) |
||
Rajasthan |
21599 prisoners in 119 prisons |
94.1 % |
N.I |
N.I |
26.3 % (A) |
|
Sikkim |
400 prisoners in 2 prisons |
153.8 % |
N.I |
N.I |
N.I |
N.I |
Tamil Nadu |
14707 prisoners in 136 prisons |
62.9 % |
N.I |
20.1% (A) 26.33% (E)
|
||
Telangana |
6717 prisoners in 46 prisons |
86.3 % |
N.I |
N.I |
N.I |
N.I |
Tripura |
1103 prisoners in 13 prisons |
50.7 % |
N.I |
25.6% (E) 1.3% (A) |
||
Uttar Pradesh |
101279 prisoners in 67 prisons |
167.9 % |
N.I |
18.7% (E) 20.5% (A) |
||
Uttarakhand |
5629 in 11 prisons |
159.0% |
N.I |
24.2% (E) 18.8% (A) |
||
West Bengal |
23092 prisoners in 58 prisons |
106.1% |
All prisoners convicted of a sentence of upto 7 years, irrespective of the maximum sentence prescribed in the offence, except:
|
14.1% (E) 10.1% (A) |
||
Union Territories |
||||||
Andaman and Nicobar Islands |
244 prisoners in 5 prisons |
79% |
|
N.I |
N.I |
N.I |
Dadra and Nagar Haveli |
46 prisoners in 1 prison |
65.7% |
|
0 |
2.56% (A) |
|
Daman and Diu |
62 prisoners in 2 prison |
103.3% |
|
0 |
0 |
|
Delhi |
17534 prisoners in 10 prisons |
174.9% |
On personal bond, undertrial prisoners and convicts who have been accused/convicted in offences punishable below 7 years. |
29.9 % (E) 35.6% (A) |
||
Chandigarh |
984 prisoners in 1 prison |
87.9% |
|
N.I |
48.7% (A) |
|
Jammu and Kashmir |
3689 prisoners in 14 prisons |
126.8% |
All prisoners who are convicted in one offence and have already served a term of 10 years (8 years for women), except:
|
N.I |
8.8 % (A) |
|
Ladakh |
N.I |
N.I |
|
N.I |
N.I |
N.I |
Lakshadweep |
4 prisoner in 4 prisons |
6.3% |
|
N.I |
N.I |
N.I |
Puducherry |
263 prisoners in 4 prisons |
63.2% |
|
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
478600 prisoners |
118.5% |
|
66,661 |
68,264 |
16.8% (E) 17.2% (A) |
*The prison capacities, population and occupancy rate are as depicted in Prison Statistics India 2019. Though ideally the latest occupancy would be calculated, this data is not uniformly available in the public domain.