Beyond Containment: Restoring Constitutional Dignity in Punjab Prisons

Abstract

Problem statement: carceral collapse and constitutional blindness.

Punjab prison system is in structural inertia, colonial in construction and without undergoing any significant reform. After decades of policy debates, court observations and constitutional assurances, imprisonment in Punjab still acts more as a way of control (as opposed to correction). What has been obtained is a system that continues to act in violation of the fundamental rights and abuses are the rule not exception with overcrowding, lack of classifying those who are detained, administrative secrecy and political interference.

The legislative backdrop, in the form of the Prisons Act, 1894, Prisoners Act, 1900, Borstal Act, 1926 and Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 is old, piecemeal, and in every way unsuitable to modern standards of human rights, especially as set out in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). The custodial containment and disciplinary regulation under these statutes are emphasized but no rehabilitative philosophy along with enforceable rights regime of prisoners is established. As opposed to other provinces, Punjab has never elaborated a codified Jail Manual that follows the constitutional requirements or international commitments.

Looking at the constitution, the system has gross inconsistencies. The Constitution of Pakistan is security of life, liberty, inviolability of human dignity, and the equality before the law as guaranteed by Articles 9, 14, and 25. Nonetheless, the situation within prisons in Punjab conditions includes medical neglect, mental health problems, a lack of legal assistance, and discrimination in classification of prisoners, which nullifies such assurances both in practice and theory. The fact that there is a difference in how the A-Class, B-Class and C-Class criminals are treated demonstrates an institutional prejudice regarding the socio-political privilege, and therefore the equal protection under the law principle is being violated.

In addition, there is an institutional dysfunction which runs through the parole and probation system. There is minimal use of parole release, overworked probation officers and the legislative independence of parole boards is never there or diminished. Such an administrative stasis does not only worsen overcrowding but also does not allow the rationalization of a non-custodial sentence as an alternative as well.

Although ocassionally the judiciary has intervened by way of inspections or suo moto measures, a consistent structural approach to the correctional institutions has never been established by the judiciary. Article 199 is still an underutilized authority when it comes to issues of prison conditions, and bail jurisprudence does not bear any resemblance to the reality on the ground in terms of carceral problems of suffering or unaccountability. This judicial disengagement allows carceral injustices to persist in the shadows of the legal system.

The problem, therefore, is not merely one of inadequate resources or outdated laws. It is a deeper systemic failure: a collapse of legal, administrative, and constitutional responsibility in the domain of incarceration. Prisons in Punjab operate as closed-off spaces where fundamental rights are suspended and legal oversight is minimal. This research argues that unless the judiciary assumes a catalytic role and the legislative and executive branches embrace rights-based reform, the prison system will continue to function as a constitutional blind spot and a moral failure of the state.