<<Previous Table of Content Next>>

Abstract

The authors examine the state of undertrial prisoners in India, using data from crime and prison statistics released by the National Crime Records Bureau. They find that despite various interventions and reforms introduced by the legislature and judiciary, the extent and duration of undertrial incarceration amongst prisoners is not only on the rise, but also that it has a disproportionate impact on the most socio-economically vulnerable sections of society. The authors argue that judicial and legislative measures have failed because of lack of sustained and systematic institutionalisation. They conclude that a systemic re-imagination of bail law is needed for a true ameliorative impact on the state of undertrial prisoners in India.

. . . . .

The laxity with which we throw citizens into prison reflects our lack of appreciation for the tribulations of incarceration; the callousness with which we leave them there reflects our lack of deference for humanity. It also reflects our imprudence when our prisons are bursting at their seams. For the prisoner himself, imprisonment for the purposes of the trial is as ignoble as imprisonment on conviction for an offence, since the damning finger and opprobrious eyes of society draw no difference between the two. The plight of the undertrial seems to gain focus only on a solicitous inquiry by this Court, and soon after, quickly fades into the backdrop.

Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics¹

BACKGROUND  68 

In this chapter, we analyse the state of undertrial incarceration in India. It is based on data from the Prison Statistics India Report and Crime in India Report released annually by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). The latest data available is for 2015. We have compared the data for 2015 with that for the preceding 14 years to study trends and patterns in undertrial incarceration. Where data for the preceding 14 years is not available, we have relied on data for 10 years. We find that despite various interventions by the legislature and the judiciary in this duration, not only is the extent and duration of undertrial incarceration on the rise, but also that such incarceration has a disproportionate impact on the most socio-economically vulnerable sections of society.

The Prison Statistics India Report, 2015 indicates that 67 per cent of India’s prison population comprises undertrial prisoners.² This number has been consistently high, at an average of 66.97 per cent over the last 15 years,³ as may be seen in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1. Percentage of Undertrial Prisoners (2001–2015)

Note: The corresponding figures are set out in Table A1 in the Annexure.

In addition to this, prisons are chronically overcrowded, operating at 114.5 per cent of their capacity at the end of 2015, a marginal decrease of 2.56 per cent from 117.4 per cent in 2014. After a visible decline in occupancy rate from 2001 to 2009,⁴ the rate has been consistent over the last seven years, as can be seen in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2. Occupancy Rate in Prisons (2001–2015)  69 

Note: The corresponding figures are set out in Table A2 in the Annexure.

Significantly, although the Supreme Court has held that speedy trial is implicit in the requirement for ‘just, fair, reasonable’ procedure under Article 21,⁵ the data on undertrial prisoners for over five years in the last 15 years highlights certain grave concerns. As may be seen from Table 1, the absolute number and percentage of undertrials who have spent more than half a decade in prison, especially in the last five years, has been progressively increasing, indicating that the problem is only getting worse. Currently, 3,599 prisoners have been incarcerated for over five years. This phenomenon is at a time when the number of undertrial prisoners as a whole has been on the rise and the percentage of undertrials who spend less than one year in prison is broadly on the decline, implying that a higher proportion of people tend to stay in prison for longer than one year. That the proportion of the undertrial population that spends more than five years in prison is also increasing buttresses the concern regarding the increasing length of undertrial incarceration.

TABLE 1. Number and Percentage of Undertrial Prisoners for More than Five Years and Less than One Year (2001–2015)

Year	Total number of undertrials	Number of undertrials who have been in prison for longer than five years	Percentage of undertrials in jail for more than five years	Number of undertrials who have been in prison for less than one year	Percentage of undertrials in jail for less than one year
2001	2,20,817	1,264	0.57	1,77,386	80.33
2002	2,23,038	1,026	0.46	1,79,015	80.26
2003	2,17,658	1,481	0.68	1,77,921	81.74
2004	2,17,130	2,069	0.95	1,70,059	78.32
2005	2,37,076	1,884	0.79	1,91,827	80.91
2006	2,45,244	1,569	0.64	1,99,608	81.39
2007	2,50,727	1,891	0.75	1,99,517	79.58
2008	2,57,928	2,130	0.83	2,03,898	79.05
2009	2,50,204	2,422	0.97	1,96,144	78.39
2010	2,40,098	1,659	0.69	1,87,459	78.08
2011	2,41,200	1,486	0.62	1,88,246	78.05
2012	2,64,857	2,028	0.77	1,97,467	74.56
2013	2,78,503	3,047	1.09	2,13,956	76.82
2014	2,82,879	3,540	1.25	2,11,441	74.75
2015	2,82,076	3,599	1.28	2,11,460	74.97

 70 The reasons for the increasing undertrial problem in India are twofold: first, lax arrest laws and second, stringent bail laws.

Arrest

Indiscriminate arrest laws contribute significantly to the burgeoning undertrial population. The law relating to arrest with or without a warrant and the rights of persons who are arrested are contained in Sections 41–60 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. Section 41 stipulates the different categories of persons who may be arrested without warrant by the police. The bulk of arrests under this section concerns persons who have been accused of being involved in any cognisable offence, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists of their involvement.⁶ This section is so broadly worded, and places so few requirements on a police officer in relation to effecting an arrest, that it has long been the source of indiscriminate arrests. The Supreme Court itself recognised this concern in Joginder Kumar v. State of UP.⁷ The court has also cautioned that arrest should be treated as an exception and not the rule and that just because the police has the power to arrest, does not mean that they should do so in each and every instance.⁸

In light of concerns raised about the arbitrary use of the arrest power, in 2009, the Parliament amended Section 41 to limit the power of arrest for cognisable offences for which punishment is seven years or less. Section 41(1)(b) of the CrPC now provides that a police officer may arrest any person without warrant against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists  71 that he has committed a cognisable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, only after certain conditions have been satisfied. These conditions include that the police officer should be satisfied that such arrest is necessary to:

1. Prevent the person from committing any further offence;

2. For proper investigation of the offence;

3. To prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner;

4. To prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to the police officer; or

5. Unless such person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured.

The amended section also requires that the police officer records in writing his reasons for making or not making the arrest.

In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar,⁹ the Supreme Court reviewed the amended provision on arrest and sought to further curb the problem of unnecessary arrests and detention. While under Section 41(1)(b) the requirement of giving reasons is limited to the police officer, the Supreme Court emphasised that the magistrate should also apply his mind while ordering an arrestee to be detained beyond a 24-hour period as prescribed in Section 167 of the CrPC. Commenting on the routine manner in which courts remand a person to custody upon the first production, the Supreme Court held that a magistrate must address the question of whether specific reasons that are prima facie relevant have been recorded for arrest. The court also stated that the magistrate must assess whether the police officer could have reached a reasonable conclusion that any of conditions mentioned above are attracted. The court mandated departmental action against police officers and magistrates who do not comply with the provisions of Section 41(1)(b) or do not record reasons for authorising arrests or detentions.¹⁰

Through these systemic changes, the legislature and judiciary have attempted to curb unnecessary arrests. These developments seem to be bearing fruit. An analysis of the overall rate of arrest [calculated by dividing the total number of arrests against the total number of cognisable crimes reported under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860] for the last 15 years, suggests a decline.¹¹ We also analysed the rate of arrest for theft, as well as for cruelty by husband and his family in particular. Theft forms the largest bulk of cases registered under cognisable offences for which punishment is seven years or less.¹² Further, since the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar were laid down in the context of Section 498-A of the IPC, cruelty by husband and his relatives has also been analysed. Figure 3 compares the overall rate of arrest with the rates of arrest for cruelty and theft. The data for theft and cruelty by husband and his relatives also indicates a sharp decline in the rate of arrests after Arnesh Kumar.

FIGURE 3. Rates of Arrest  72 

Note. The corresponding figures are mentioned in Tables A3, A4, and A5 in the Annexure.

It is important to note that Arnesh Kumar was decided in late 2014. Therefore, we only have figures for 2015 to study the impact of Arnesh Kumar. As such, it might be too early to draw inferences about the impact of this judgment. Having said that, the trend does indicate that if there are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent arrest unless absolutely necessary, it will go a long way in preventing undue incarceration.

Bail

The second cause of the increasing undertrial incarceration is the problematic bail law in India.¹³ An analysis of the Prison Statistics of 2014 and 2015 indicates that a total of 15,74,433 undertrial prisoners passed through the prison system in 2015. This includes 2,82,879 persons who were in prison pending trial at the end of 2014 and 12,91,554 who came into the system in 2015. By the end of 2015, of these 15,74,433 individuals, 12,92,357 (82.08 per cent) were released from prison for various reasons such as acquittal, release on bail, release on appeal, transfer, extradition, and other releases during the course of the year. Of these, 11,57,581 persons (73.52 per cent of the 15,74,433 undertrials) were released on bail,¹⁴ while 2,82,076 undertrials remained in the system at the end of 2015. On the face of it, the numbers suggest that a large proportion of people who are incarcerated are released, especially on bail. However, in absolute numbers, a significant proportion of them continue to remain in prison. Further, as we demonstrate in Figure 4, despite various interventions by the legislature and the judiciary, the proportion of undertrial prisoners who continue to remain in prison has not shown any decline. The number of undertrial prisoners released in general and the number of undertrial prisoners released on bail has been constant in proportion to the total number of undertrial prisoners admitted  73 into prison. Given that all these other figures are constant, it is worrying that percentage of the prison population that is less than one year old is decreasing, and the proportion of people who are in prison for longer than five years is increasing, as illustrated in Table 1. This means that people are staying in prison for longer, implying that the state of undertrial prisoners is neither improving, nor maintaining status quo, but is actually regressing. It is taking people longer to be released on bail.

FIGURE 4. Number of Undertrial Prisoners Released (2006–2015)

Note: The corresponding figures are mentioned in Table A6 of the Annexure.

Of the 26.48 per cent (4,16,852) undertrial prisoners who were not released on bail, 12.5 per cent (52,191) were either released on appeal or for other reasons.¹⁵ That leaves 3,64,661 undertrial prisoners who were not released on bail, appeal, or otherwise. Of this group, 22.64 per cent (82,585) were acquitted and the remaining (2,82,076) continue to be in the system. This implies that of the people who are not released on bail or otherwise, nearly one in four ended up being acquitted. Table 2 shows a similar analysis for the last 10 years, and suggests that on average one in five undertrials are acquitted.

TABLE 2. Percentage of Undertrial Prisoners Acquitted (2006–2015)

Year	Number of undertrials that passed through the prison system	Number of undertrials not released on bail, appeal, or otherwise	Number of undertrials acquitted	Percentage of undertrials acquitted from those who are not released on bail or otherwise
2006	15,85,844	3,21,569	76,325	23.74
2007	15,70,336	3,20,506	69,779	21.77
2008	15,95,896	3,42,551	84,623	24.70
2009	16,15,945	3,20,278	70,074	21.88
2010	16,05,620	3,11,658	71,560	22.96
2011	16,15,023	3,11,139	69,939	22.48
2012	16,99,731	3,40,940	76,083	22.32
2013	16,74,497	3,43,989	65,486	19.04
2014	16,78,000	3,47,095	64,216	18.50
2015	15,74,433	3,64,661	82,585	22.65

 74 This worsening problem is despite interventions from various organs of the state. For example, the legislature amended the CrPC in 2005 and introduced Section 436-A to release undertrial prisoners who serve half the maximum sentence in prison as a matter of right. Further, Section 436 of the CrPC was amended in 2005 to provide that if a person arrested for a bailable offence is not able to furnish bail within a week of arrest, he shall be presumed to be indigent, and shall be released on bond without sureties.

The judiciary has also prescribed guidelines to deal with the issue of overcrowding in prisons. In light of a large number of long-pending cases, the Supreme Court has periodically issued ‘one-time’ directions for the release of prisoners,¹⁶ for example, in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India¹⁷ and in Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India.¹⁸

Similarly, in R.D. Upadhyay v. State of AP,¹⁹ the Supreme Court held that undertrial prisoners charged with murder should be released on bail if their cases were pending for two years or more, and that persons charged with comparatively minor offences, such as theft, cheating, etc., should be released if they had been in prison for more than a year. This order was limited to the cases pending at the time of the order. Similar ‘one-time’ orders were also passed by the High Court of Delhi in Shankra v. State (Delhi Admn.).²⁰ Since the directions in all these cases were limited to matters pending at that time, they did not contribute to systemic changes in bail laws. Systemic changes such as the introduction of Section 436-A have also not contributed significantly due to the non-implementation of the provisions, as noted by the Supreme Court in Bhim Singh v. Union of India.²¹ While recognising the problems with implementation of Section 436-A, the Court directed the jurisdictional magistrate/chief judicial magistrate/sessions judge to hold one sitting per week in each jail/prison for two months to identify undertrials eligible for bail under Section 436-A and to pass an appropriate order with respect to Section 436-A in the jail itself. This was yet another one-time solution to a problem that is endemic to the system.

In 2016, in Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, re,²² the Social Justice Bench of the Supreme Court prescribed comprehensive guidelines to ameliorate the condition of overcrowding in prisons. It asked the central government and the state governments to take steps for the effective implementation of Section 436 of the CrPC. It also asked National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to issue directions to state legal services authorities to look into  75 matters of undertrial prisoners still in prison due to inability to furnish bail. To the best of our knowledge, there is no data available to determine the impact of the orders of the Court in this case, but past practice indicates that without sustained implementation and follow-up, judicial orders such as these are likely to have little impact on the state of undertrial incarceration in India.

DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION OF UNDERTRIAL PRISONERS

Muslims and persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are overrepresented in the undertrial prisoner population, when compared to their demographic share in the general population. Data from the Prisons Statistics India, 2015 indicates that 69.8 per cent (1,96,814) of undertrial prisoners identify as Hindus and 20.9 per cent (n=59,053) identify as Muslims. According to the 2011 census, only 14 per cent of the general population is Muslim.²³ This suggests that Muslims are over-represented by 49.28 per cent and Hindus are under-represented by 12.75 per cent in the undertrial prisoner population when compared to the general population. When we examine the religious profile of convicts, of the 1,34,168 convicts in prison at the end of 2015, 21,220 or 15.8 per cent of them were Muslims, showing a drop of 24.4 per cent in comparison to their presence in the undertrial population. This implies that although the presence of Muslims in the convict and general populations is roughly the same, they are however likely to be over-represented as undertrials. In other words, Muslims are over-incarcerated pending trial as compared to other religious groups.

Further, 21.6 per cent (61,139) of the undertrial prisoner population belongs to Scheduled Castes and 12.4 per cent (34,999) belongs to Scheduled Tribes. On the other hand, the 2011 census indicates that 16.2 per cent of the overall population are Scheduled Castes and 8.2 per cent are Scheduled Tribes, suggesting an over-representation of 33.33 per cent by Scheduled Castes and of 51.22 per cent by Scheduled Tribes in the undertrial prison population.

An overwhelming majority of the undertrials (70.6 per cent) are either illiterate or have not completed Class 10. Of these, 28.5 per cent (80,528) of undertrial prisoners were reported to be illiterate and 42.12 per cent (1,19,082) dropped out of school before passing Class 10. Those who had cleared Class 10, but had not graduated from college constituted 20.61 per cent (58,160) of the total undertrial prisoners. Only 5.8 per cent (16,365) graduated from college and 2.8 per cent (7,941) received a postgraduate degree or a technical degree or a diploma. In the absence of data regarding the economic status of prisoners, these numbers serve as a useful proxy to appreciate that the majority of undertrial prisoners belong to socio-economically marginalised groups and are thus more vulnerable to poor legal representation, and therefore to extended periods of incarceration.

CONCLUSION

Taken together, the numbers above reveal a grim picture of the state of undertrial incarceration in India. It is a picture of overflowing prisons, housing mostly undertrial prisoners, most of whom are impoverished and marginalised, but many of whom will, after long periods of undertrial detention, be acquitted of the charges against them.

People are being incarcerated for longer durations. Nearly a quarter of those who are not otherwise released will finally be acquitted of the crime for which they are incarcerated. Such incarceration  76 has a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable sections of the population. Also, the rate of incarceration is higher than the capacity of prisons to house this population, leading to problematic prison conditions.

This data demonstrates the need for a sustained and systemic re-imagination of bail law in India to ensure that the prisoners are not unduly incarcerated. The amendments that laid down restrictions on the power of arrest for cognisable offences for which punishment is seven years or less and the systemic changes brought about by the judiciary for arrest laws appear to be bearing some fruit. Similar efforts are required in the realm of bail law in order to address the issue of undertrial incarceration in India. Insistence on reasoned orders and justifications for denial of bail; automatic evaluation by the judge at every remand and trial hearing of whether the prisoner should remain incarcerated or be released on bail (without the prisoner having to file an application for this purpose); re-thinking the current framework of monetary sanctions as the primary condition for bail; and strict implementation of the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, are some measures that are likely to have a positive impact on undertrial incarceration in India.

Annexure

TABLE A1. Undertrial Prisoner Population

Year	Total prison population	Undertrial population	Percentage of undertrials
2001	3,13,635	2,20,817	70.41
2002	3,22,357	2,23,038	69.19
2003	3,26,519	2,17,658	66.66
2004	3,31,391	2,17,130	65.52
2005	3,58,368	2,37,076	66.15
2006	3,73,271	2,45,244	65.70
2007	3,76,396	2,50,727	66.61
2008	3,84,753	2,57,928	67.04
2009	3,76,969	2,50,204	66.37
2010	3,68,998	2,40,098	65.07
2011	3,72,926	2,41,200	64.68
2012	3,85,135	2,64,857	68.77
2013	4,11,992	2,78,503	67.60
2014	4,18,536	2,82,879	67.59
2015	4,19,623	2,82,076	67.22

TABLE A2. Occupancy Rate in Prison

Year	Occupancy rate
2001	136.5
2002	140.2
2003	139.8
2004	141
2005	145.4
2006	141.4
2007	135.7
2008	129.2
2009	112.8
2010	115.1
2011	112.1
2012	112.2
2013	118.4
2014	117.4
2015	114.4

 77 TABLE A3. Rates of Arrests for All Cognisable Offences under the IPC

Year	Arrests made	Cases reported	Rate of arrest
2001	26,71,540	17,69,308	1.51
2002	26,96,543	17,80,330	1.51
2003	25,10,892	17,16,120	1.46
2004	26,60,910	18,32,015	1.45
2005	26,21,547	18,22,602	1.44
2006	26,53,683	18,78,293	1.41
2007	27,80,559	19,89,673	1.40
2008	28,82,286	20,93,379	1.38
2009	28,49,025	21,21,345	1.34
2010	29,47,122	22,24,831	1.32
2011	31,45,845	23,25,575	1.35
2012	32,70,016	23,87,188	1.37
2013	35,23,577	26,47,722	1.33
2014	37,90,812	28,51,563	1.33
2015	36,36,596	29,49,400	1.23

TABLE A4. Rates of Arrest for Theft

Year	Arrests made	Cases reported	Rate of arrest for theft
2001	1,62,214	2,52,803	0.64
2002	1,63,475	2,47,462	0.66
2003	1,59,518	2,45,237	0.65
2004	1,86,005	2,73,045	0.68
2005	2,08,670	2,73,111	0.76
2006	1,99,228	2,74,354	0.73
2007	1,94,182	2,85,043	0.68
2008	2,08,311	3,16,761	0.66
2009	1,94,348	3,24,195	0.60
2010	1,94,066	3,30,312	0.59
2011	2,04,207	3,40,800	0.60
2012	1,97,555	3,37,407	0.59
2013	2,10,304	3,72,622	0.56
2014	2,59,441	4,40,915	0.59
2015	2,22,556	4,67,833	0.48

TABLE A5. Rates of Arrest for Cruelty by Husband and Relatives

Year	Arrests made	Cases reported	Rate of arrest for cruelty
2001	1,09,467	49,170	2.23
2002	1,12,956	49,237	2.29
2003	1,10,623	50,703	2.18
2004	1,25,657	58,121	2.16
2005	1,27,560	58,319	2.19
2006	1,37,180	63,128	2.17
2007	1,56,412	75,930	2.06
2008	1,64,861	81,344	2.03
2009	1,74,395	89,546	1.95
2010	1,80,413	94,041	1.92
2011	1,80,701	99,135	1.82
2012	1,97,762	1,06,527	1.86
2013	2,22,091	1,18,866	1.87
2014	2,25,648	1,22,877	1.84
2015	1,87,067	1,13,403	1.65

 78 TABLE A6. Undertrial Prisoners Released Each Year (2006–2015)

Year	Undertrials admitted into prison	Undertrials that were in the prison system	Undertrials released overall	Undertrials released on bail
2006	13,48,768	15,85,844	13,40,600	11,65,836
2007	13,25,092	15,70,336	13,19,609	11,55,154
2008	13,45,169	15,95,896	13,37,968	11,50,505
2009	13,58,017	16,15,945	13,65,741	12,10,453
2010	13,55,416	16,05,620	13,65,522	12,16,280
2011	13,74,925	16,15,023	13,73,823	12,16,481
2012	14,58,531	16,99,731	14,34,874	12,65,500
2013	14,09,640	16,74,497	13,95,994	12,47,721
2014	13,99,497	16,78,000	13,95,121	12,39,733
2015	12,91,554	15,74,433	12,92,357	11,57,581

Notes

1. (2013) 2 SCC 590.

2. NCRB. 2015. Prison Statistics India 2015. Available online at http://ncrb.nic.in/StatPublications/PSI/Prison2015/PrisonStat2015.htm (accessed on 29 September 2017).

3. NCRB, Prison Statistics.

4. Occupancy rate refers to the actual number of prisoners per 100 authorised slots in prisons.

5. Hussainara Khatoon (4) v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98: (1979) 3 SCR 532.

6. Sections 41(1) and 41(2) of the CrPC.

7. (1994) 4 SCC 260.

8. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, (1994) 4 SCC 260. See also Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP, (2014) 2 SCC 1.

9. (2014) 8 SCC 273 (Arnesh Kumar).

10. To ensure that a person who is not arrested is available for investigation, Section 41-A of the CrPC states that the police officer shall issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognisable offence, to appear before him at such other place as may be specified. Once such a notice is issued, the person shall comply with the terms of the notice. If he complies with the notice, he shall not be arrested unless the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested after recording reasons. If the person does not comply with the terms or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.

11. Data available on Crime in India Reports published annually by the NCRB.

12. Theft constitutes 27 per cent of the cognisable offences for which punishment is seven years or less. A general category called ‘Other IPC Offences’ covers around 60 per cent of all cognisable offences.

13. The Law Commission of India recognised in its 78th Report, Congestion of Undertrial Prisoners in Jails, that ‘detention in prison in the case of undertrial prisoners is generally the result of arrest for an alleged offence not followed by the grant of bail. It becomes, therefore, material to consider at some length the law relating to grant of bail.’ Law Commission of India. 1979. Congestion of Undertrial Prisoners in Jails, p. 4, available online at http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/51-100/report78.pdf (accessed on 29 September 2017).

14. The NCRB data does not clarify whether bail was granted by the court of first instance or by a higher court.

15. The NCRB uses the phrase ‘release on appeal’, which we have assumed to mean release pending appeal, under Section 389 of the CrPC.

16. Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616.

17. (1994) 6 SCC 731.

18. (1996) 2 SCC 616.

19. (1996) 3 SCC 422.

20. 1995 SCC OnLine Del 399.

21. (2015) 13 SCC 603.

22. (2016) 3 SCC 700 (Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons).

23. Commissioner & Registrar General. 2015. ‘Religion Census 2011’, Population Census 2011, available online at http://www.census2011.co.in/religion.php (accessed on 29 September 2017).