Introduction
Routine inspections of correctional homes often reveal the gap between legal orders and their practical implementation. On 11 March 2020, during one such visit to Baruipur Central Correctional Home as Special Inspector General of Correctional Services, West Bengal, I encountered a case that illustrated this gap with unusual clarity. A prisoner named Amar Sardar had already been ordered to be released by the magistrate. Yet he remained inside because he could not pay a fine and his lawyer’s fees amounting to ₹3,000. What followed was a modest personal intervention that secured his freedom and, at the same time, exposed deeper systemic weaknesses in the handling of indigent prisoners.
The Encounter With Amar Sardar
Amar Sardar, a resident of Kabardanga under Sonarpur Police Station in South 24 Parganas, approached me during the inspection. He made no claim of innocence and sought no special favour. He simply stated that the court had directed his release, but the required payment stood in the way. After the jailor verified the facts, I paid the amount of ₹3,000 myself and instructed that Amar be released without further delay. The next day confirmation arrived that he had walked free.
The sum was small, yet the effect was immediate. For Amar, an officer’s direct intervention was unexpected. For the staff of the correctional home, it demonstrated that administrative authority could be used to remove an avoidable obstacle to liberty.
Institutional Response and Systemic Gaps
When I reported the incident to the Director General of Prisons, he asked why the matter had not been brought to his notice so that payment could have been arranged from the Prisoners’ Welfare Fund. The question itself revealed a significant gap. Many prisoners remain in custody solely because they cannot meet modest financial obligations. Such cases often fail to reach senior levels in time, and existing welfare mechanisms remain under-utilised.
An initiative was later announced to identify other inmates in similar situations. It generated initial interest but soon lost momentum. The underlying problem—prolonged detention caused by the inability to pay small fines or legal fees—continued largely unaddressed.
Wider Weaknesses in the System
The episode pointed to broader deficiencies. Free legal aid exists on paper, yet many assigned lawyers visit prisons infrequently and provide limited support. Judicial officers who inspect jails frequently concentrate on administrative shortcomings rather than pressing the concerned departments for concrete improvements in infrastructure, staffing, medical facilities, and living conditions.
Because prisons are non-revenue-generating institutions and prisoners have no electoral voice, their needs tend to receive lower priority in budgetary decisions. As a result, several problems persist with limited corrective action:
- Overcrowding
- Inadequate medical care
- Poor sanitation
- Staff shortages
The Role of Judicial Oversight
A more active and consistent role by judicial officers could help address these gaps. Regular, specific, and followed-up recommendations to the administrative secretaries on issues such as overcrowding, medical care, sanitation, staff shortages, and related deficiencies would compel greater attention and resource allocation.
When judicial observations are precise and accompanied by requests for action-taken reports, they carry greater weight with the administrative machinery.
Individual acts of compassion remain valuable. They cannot, however, substitute for systematic mechanisms that prevent poverty from becoming a reason for continued incarceration.
Conclusion
The incident at Baruipur reaffirmed a simple but important truth: justice is incomplete when a person remains in prison only because he lacks a few thousand rupees. Compassion has a legitimate place within the correctional system. Lasting improvement, however, depends on institutional responsiveness and sustained oversight.
Small interventions can restore liberty in individual cases. Structural change requires that such compassion be supported by functional welfare funds, effective legal aid, attentive judicial monitoring, and administrative accountability. Only then will the release of a prisoner for want of a modest sum cease to be an exception and become an unnecessary occurrence.
