Justice Capacity: Challenges and Opportunities — NALSAR Conference Report

Overall Summary

The Conference accompanying the fourth India Justice Report brought together legal scholars, former judges, civil-society leaders and prison and police administrators to examine the country’s justice infrastructure (police, prisons, judiciary and legal aid) with special focus on Telangana’s experience. While the IJR’s empirical approach and state-by-state rankings were widely praised, speakers warned that official datasets (NCRB, NJDG and others) are incomplete and lagged, requiring complementary qualitative inquiry. The symposium highlighted meaningful reforms underway in Telangana alongside persistent challenges: understaffing, data gaps, delays in forensic and bail procedures, custodial abuses, and structural bias against marginalised communities.

Key speakers & messages

• Prof. Srikrishna Deva Rao (NALSAR): Emphasised that constitutional values must be measured in police stations, prisons and magistrates’ courts, not only in Supreme Court jurisprudence. He urged integration of IJR data into legal education and clinical legal practice and called for mandatory prison legal-aid clinics to turn statutory rights into lived realities.

• Maja Daruwala (IJR): Positioned the IJR as a decade-long collaborative effort that collates official data across police, prisons, legal aid and judiciary to enable transparency and constructive state-level reform. She noted data governance problems—lack of standardization, accessibility and timeliness—and announced forthcoming work on justice budgets.

• Hon’ble (Retd.) Justice S. Muralidhar: Praised the Report but warned about over-reliance on official figures, pointing to time-lags and discrepancies (e.g., NJDG vs. court inventories). He urged triangulation with surveys, civil-society documentation and survivor testimony; raised concerns about unlabelled detention, custodial violence, forensic delays, and the widening remit of coercive agencies beyond police.

Telangana

Speakers recognized Telangana’s rise in IJR rankings (driven by targeted reforms, institutional continuity and technological adoption). They cautioned against conflating rankings with lived realities. Telangana’s prison occupancy is mixed: statewide occupancy is reported below 100%, yet individual jails (Sangareddy, Bhongir) face severe overcrowding. Notable achievements include de-addiction centres, education and vocational programmes, digitisation (CCTV, kiosks, e-challan), and prisoner welfare innovations (interest-free family loans, insurance, market access for prison-made goods).

Systemic Challenges

Attendees described chronic understaffing across police forces, forensic labs and prison medical services, and linked these gaps to a cascade of consequences: delayed forensic reports that lengthen pre-trial detention. The disconnect between judicial orders and administrative compliance was another recurring theme. Even when courts grant bail, procedural and communication failures can mean weeks or months of avoidable incarceration.

Speakers stressed that deep social inequalities underlie many technical failures. Caste, poverty, and communal marginalization shape how people are policed, investigated, and punished. Several participants described the justice system’s tendency to reproduce social hierarchies: arrest patterns, charging decisions, and likelihood of prolonged remand.

Recommendations

One argument emphasised data triangulation: using the IJR’s official datasets alongside user surveys, RTI-driven enquiries, courtroom inventories and survivor testimony so that numbers are anchored to lived experience. Another line of argument focused on legal aid: institutionalising campus-linked prison clinics, professionalising legal-aid defenders, and establishing proactive legal outreach within detention facilities so rights are not merely theoretical but enforceable.

Practical fixes were also canvassed. Speakers urged the creation of direct electronic channels between courts, police and prisons to ensure bail orders lead to immediate release; the expansion of 24/7 bail-monitoring cells inside jails; and urgent investment in forensic and medical staffing. Equally important, they recommended scaling up social-work and rehabilitation programmes to make incarceration less punishing and more rehabilitative.

Views on the Report

The report is a starting point for reform, it gives policymakers and civil society a clearer sense of where attention is needed; but the work of reform requires persistent, coordinated action across data governance, institutional capacity and on-the-ground legal assistance. Telangana’s record has both promise and peril. Administrative innovation can produce measurable gains, yet uneven implementation and structural bias mean that the benefits of reform will only reach some unless they are deliberately extended to the most vulnerable.

If the IJR is to catalyse lasting change, the evidence it offers must be read with methods that combine numbers with narratives and must prompt the policy choices to make constitutional protections real in police stations, courts and prisons.

Inaugural Session: Justice Capacity in India

Speakers:

1. Prof. Srikrishna Deva Rao, Vice Chancellor, NALSAR

2. Ms. Maja Daruwala, Chief Editor, India Justice Report

3. Hon’ble (Retd.) Justice S. Muralidhar, Former Chief Justice, Orissa High Court

Welcome Address — Prof. Srikrishna Deva Rao

Prof. Rao began by emphasising that the Constitution’s vitality is measured not merely through constitutional jurisprudence at the Supreme Court level but in the everyday realities of police stations, prisons, and magistrates’ courts. He invoked the writings of constitutional scholars such as Prof. Muhammad Ghouse, who conceptualized the “constitutionalization of criminal justice.”

He traced the historical evolution of constitutionalism in India, noting how post-Emergency movements in human rights, investigative journalism, and women’s rights reflected a rebirth of constitutional morality. Citing Justice Krishna Iyer, he reiterated that justice must reach the poorest, homeless, and the marginalized, for whom the promise of the Constitution remains most urgent.

Prof. Rao then turned to contemporary concerns, highlighting the growing importance of data-driven justice reform. Drawing on the India Justice Report (IJR), he praised its empirical focus on police, prisons, judiciary, and legal aid, urging academics, lawyers, and policymakers to integrate this data into both teaching and practice. The creation of the National Law Universities, he said, was rooted in this very vision to bridge the gap between legal education and justice delivery.

Reflecting on the historical and cultural dimensions of reform, he invoked Gurajada Apparao’s 1890 Telugu social novel Kanyasulkam to illustrate the enduring question: Has the moral character of the State changed since independence? The novel’s character “Girisham,” he said, mirrors the continuing tension between formal freedom and lived justice—between the “new police constable” and the unchanged realities of power.

Prof. Rao also examined the current justice infrastructure through IJR data, noting the need for genuine implementation of measures like CCTV surveillance in police stations, faster processing of bail orders, and the inclusion of women in leadership positions within the Telangana police, where women now constitute over half of the registrants.

He recalled past civil liberties movements in Hyderabad and the role of organizations like the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee in monitoring police stations and prisons—efforts that must be revitalized through new technological and institutional frameworks.

Turning to prisons, he discussed the persistent gap between “correctional” ideals and ground realities. Despite some states renaming their departments as “Prisons and Correctional Services,” undertrial detention and prison overcrowding continue to pose serious challenges. He urged a collective, multi-institutional approach integrating law schools, legal aid clinics, and correctional institutions to ensure that legal aid becomes a living reality rather than a symbolic exercise.

He concluded by reaffirming the role of clinical legal education as the cornerstone of this reform agenda, emphasizing the need for mandatory, sustained prison legal aid clinics in Telangana. These, he noted, embody a new “humanistic criminology,” ensuring that justice does not remain an ideal on paper but becomes a lived experience for the most vulnerable.

Overview of the India Justice Report — Ms. Maja Daruwala

Ms. Maja Daruwala introduced the India Justice Report (IJR) as a collaborative initiative that brings together multiple civil society and research organizations including the Centre for Social Justice, Common Cause, CHRI, TISS, and Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy united by a shared goal of strengthening justice delivery through data.

She emphasized that the India Justice Report does not comment, judge, or reccommed, but instead presents objective, verifiable data across the four primary pillars of the justice system police, prisons, legal aid, and judiciary. The report’s unique contribution lies in collating official government data from diverse sources such as annual reports, CAG audits, parliamentary questions, and RTI responses, to make the functioning of justice institutions more transparent and measurable.

Ms. Daruwala noted that the India Justice Report is now in its fourth edition, representing nearly a decade of sustained work. She spoke about the initial hesitation around ranking states, explaining how the idea was intended not to fuel inter-state competition, but to encourage states to compete with themselves, continually improving their own justice capacities. Quoting Justice Madan Lokur, she described this as a form of “constructive competition for better governance.”

She clarified that the IJR’s foundation is built on official government data, which lends it legitimacy and transparency. The report aims to make this data accessible and simplified not just for policymakers, but also for implementers, students, and active citizens. Data, she said, should serve as a shared language through which various institutions police, prison departments, and legal aid authorities can identify bottlenecks and coordinate reforms.

Highlighting the challenges faced in data collection, she noted issues of inconsistency, inaccessibility, and lack of standardization across states. Some states, like Kerala, have excellent data systems but limited transparency in public sharing. The IJR’s work, she said, has therefore involved not only analysis but also suggesting improvements to data governance itself.

Expanding beyond the four foundational pillars, she mentioned that the Report has begun exploring new sub-sectors such as forensics, prosecution, juvenile justice, and state human rights commissions. She expressed concern over the declining effectiveness of these commissions and the potential downgrading of India’s national human rights accreditation at the international level.

She also underscored the centrality of budgets in justice delivery, remarking that without adequate financial allocations, institutional reform remains unattainable. The IJR, she announced, will soon release a dedicated study on “Budgets for Justice” to evaluate how financial planning affects systemic outcomes.

Turning to Telangana’s performance, Ms. Daruwala noted its steady rise in IJR rankings from 11th place in the first edition to 3rd in recent years crediting this progress to stable governance, institutional collaboration, and a proactive approach to reform. She described this as Telangana’s “constitutional moment”, where the state harnessed the opportunity of its formation to build efficient justice institutions.

Concluding her address, Ms. Daruwala remarked that the India Justice Report is not merely about statistics but about ensuring that justice reaches every individual from the most vulnerable to the most powerful. She urged collaboration among policymakers, researchers, media, and civil society to translate data into meaningful reform, reaffirming that “justice is the business of us all.”

Keynote Address — Hon’ble (Retd.) Justice S. Muralidhar

Justice Muralidhar opened by congratulating the India Justice Report (IJR) team and partner organisations for producing a comprehensive and readable volume. He acknowledged the contributors and authors by name and highlighted the breadth of work in the current edition particularly noting the inclusion of new thematic chapters (mediation, state human rights commissions, and follow-up essays on police, prisons, prosecution and juvenile justice). He praised the cooperative nature of the coalition behind the Report and the sustained effort over several editions.

He then moved into a detailed, critical assessment of the Report’s methodology and the broader implications of relying primarily on official data and used that as a springboard to pose a set of probing questions about the functioning of India’s criminal justice institutions.

Praise for the Report; acknowledgement of contributors

Justice Muralidhar commended the IJR as a major collaborative accomplishment listing many contributors and stressing that the Report’s readable presentation represents substantial analytical labour. He welcomed thematic expansions (forensics, prosecution, juvenile justice, state human rights commissions, mediation) and observed that the Report’s improved presentation reflects deeper work in the latest edition.

The limits of official data and the time lag problem

A central strand of his address was a firm reminder of the limitations of official datasets. He noted the common two-year lag in national statistics (e.g., NCRB) and explained how this time lag constrains contemporary policy analysis. Using the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) as an example of a granular official source, he cautioned that NJDG figures may still diverge from reality: physical inventories of court files have sometimes revealed discrepancies with uploaded statistics. He argued that official data therefore tells an important part of the story but not the whole story and that readers must treat it as a prompt for further inquiry rather than a definitive account.

Complementary sources and the World Justice Project comparison

Justice Muralidhar contrasted the IJR’s official-data approach with the World Justice Project, which supplements official metrics with large-scale survey evidence (public/user surveys and expert questionnaires) and treats factors like absence of corruption and public perceptions as central. He urged that such complementary sources surveys, civil-society documentation, and victim testimony are necessary to see what official numbers conceal.

Expanded policing landscape: non-traditional investigators and enforcement agencies

The address drew attention to the evolving policing landscape: apart from state police, other agencies (e.g., ED, customs, central investigating agencies) exercise wide coercive powers search, seizure, arrest, interrogation sometimes without the same training or constitutional safeguards expected of police. Justice Muralidhar highlighted the problem of admissibility of statements taken by such agencies and raised concerns about how protections under Article 22 (information of grounds of arrest, production before magistrate within 24 hours, and right to counsel) are observed in practice.

Unofficial/hidden detention and the role of legal aid

A major emphasis was on the phenomenon of unofficial or unlabelled detention centres open secrets where people may be held before any official record of arrest appears. He recounted how families often learn only belatedly about a detention, and stressed the critical role of legal aid bodies and 24/7 helplines in documenting the true time and circumstances of apprehension. Justice Muralidhar argued that legal aid should be proactive advertised, accessible, and positioned to preserve contemporaneous records (which become crucial in habeas corpus and custodial violence cases).

Custodial violence, under-reporting, and data variance

The Justice flagged serious under-reporting of custodial violence and deaths in custody, observing wide variance between official records (NCRB), SHRC/NHRC data, and civil-society findings. He cited civil-society studies (e.g., Common Cause) that collect victim and police testimony and reveal discrepancies with official tallies. He stressed that India’s non-ratification of the UN Torture Convention compounds the problem because there is no binding obligation to systematically record and report torture.

Structural biases: caste, communalism, and marginalisation

Justice Muralidhar drew attention to inbuilt social biases shaping criminal justice outcomes. He noted evidence on caste discrimination reflected in old prison manuals and continuing practices, and he compared the overrepresentation of minorities in Indian prisons to racial disparities in other countries. These structural biases, he argued, cannot be detected by headline statistics and require targeted qualitative and disaggregated quantitative analysis.

DK Basu: compliance gap and the functioning of safeguards

Using the DK Basu guidelines as an example, he explained that formal compliance may be illusory: some police stations respond to compliance questionnaires by claiming absence of the instrument or by literalist answers. CCTV rollout was offered as a case in point cameras may be installed, yet critical cells and unmarked detention rooms remain uncovered. He cautioned against equating equipment presence with effective oversight.

Corruption and the measurement problem

The Justice acknowledged corruption as a persistent, measurable impediment to rule-of-law goals and urged the use of indices and cross-sector data (e.g., Transparency International) to supplement official statistics. He insisted that official data alone cannot reveal the extent of corrupt practices that distort policing, prosecution, and adjudication.

Forensics, procedural delays and practical implications

Justice Muralidhar highlighted systemic delays particularly in forensic laboratory (FSL) turnaround which lead to repeated adjournments and prolonged pre-trial incarceration. The absence of timely MLC/FSL reports undermines both prosecution and defence and delays judicial resolution, exacerbating overcrowding in prisons and prosecutorial inefficiency.

Prisons, overcrowding, juvenile institutions and custodial interchangeability

Turning to prisons, he criticised the common failure to account for the diversity of custodial spaces (observation homes, juvenile homes, Nari Nikethans, places of safety) and the interchangeability that leads to children being housed in adult facilities when age determination is pending. He underscored severe understaffing and the colonial legacy reflected in prison governance (including the use of convicts for internal labour and the deployment of staff with problematic records to punitive postings). He noted that poverty unable to furnish sureties or bonds pushes many into protracted remand.

Understaffing, misallocation of police duties and opportunity cost

Justice Muralidhar catalogued the many extraneous duties assigned to police V.I.P. protection, protocol work, escort duties that divert scarce officers from core functions (investigation, community policing). He noted how understaffing and misallocation reduce capacity for scientific investigation, contribute to custodial abuses, and impair law-and-order responses.

Prosecutorial independence, special laws and data aggregation

He raised concern about the lack of an independent prosecution service (a long-resolved recommendation still unmet) and noted the difficulty of interpreting aggregate statistics in the face of expanding special laws (UAPA, PMLA, etc.) which alter arrest patterns, investigative priorities, and pre-trial detention dynamics. He recommended careful disaggregation so that statistics for IPC offences are not conflated with those for special legislations with distinct procedural regimes.

Telangana observations and the regional pattern

Justice Muralidhar commented on Telangana’s improving performance in the IJR rankings and positioned that progress within the broader pattern of southern states performing well on measured indicators. However, he urged caution: rankings do not eliminate the need to interrogate the lived reality behind numbers encounters, disappearances, custodial torture, caste and communal disparities.

The need for multi-disciplinary analysis and complementary sources

He concluded by demanding specialist analytic capability sociologists, political scientists, statisticians, historians, and legal scholars to read and interpret what the data reveal and, crucially, what they hide. He called for integrating official statistics with RTI-driven data requests, civil-society reports, court judgments, and survivor testimony to construct a fuller, actionable picture of the criminal justice system.

Illustrative examples and case references

Throughout, Justice Muralidhar used concrete examples discrepancies in NJDG vs. physical inventories, the real-world experience of detainees whose arrest dates differ from arrest memos, the Telangana “fake encounter” episode and its subsequent institutional reactions to illustrate the gaps that statistics alone cannot fill.

Closing reflection

He closed by urging the assembled students, academics, and practitioners to use the IJR as a starting point: to ask harder questions, to pair quantitative work with qualitative inquiry, and to deploy their collective expertise to make the statistics meaningful for reforms that protect rights, improve functioning, and reduce structural bias.

Session II: Justice Capacity in Telangana — Legal Aid and Prisons

Chair: Hon’ble Justice Sam Koshy, Executive Chairperson, Telangana State Legal Services Authority (TSLSA)

Speakers:

1. Ms. Nayanika Singhal, Senior Research Associate, India Justice Report

2. Sri Mudigonda Raju, Senior Civil Judge, Telangana State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad

3. Prof. Vijay Raghavan, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) & India Justice Report

4. Dr. Soumya Mishra, IPS, Director General of Prisons, Telangana

5. Prof. (Dr.) Murali Karnam, Director, Access to Justice for Prisoners (AJP), NALSAR University of Law

Sri Mudigonda Raju, Senior Civil Judge, Telangana State Legal Services Authority

Hon’ble Judge Mudigonda Raju began by situating the discussion within the larger context of India’s justice backlog, noting that over 45 million cases remain pending across various courts, with a significant portion originating from rural areas. He emphasised that prolonged litigation and associated costs often deter rural litigants from seeking justice, pushing many towards informal dispute resolution or complete denial of justice.

He reiterated that Article 39A of the Constitution and the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 form the cornerstone of India’s legal aid framework. The system operates through a four-tier hierarchy the National, State, District, and Taluka Legal Services Authorities each ensuring that free legal aid reaches the grassroots. Complementing these are Legal Aid Clinics functioning in law colleges, villages, and prisons, which involve students and paralegal volunteers in expanding legal awareness.

Focusing on Telangana, Judge Raju outlined several initiatives of the Telangana State Legal Services Authority (TSLSA), including:

• Training and orientation programs for Paralegal Volunteers (PLVs) to bridge the gap between citizens and institutions.

• Legal literacy and awareness camps aimed at marginalised groups.

• Regular organisation of Lok Adalats and National Lok Adalats to promote alternate dispute resolution.

• Establishment of Legal Aid Clinics across rural and urban areas, shelter homes, and prisons, in accordance with NALSA regulations.

He identified persistent challenges in rural legal aid, such as limited awareness (only 15% of rural residents know of legal aid schemes), financial constraints, geographical inaccessibility, shortage of professionals, and the digital divide. To address these, he proposed a holistic approach combining legal literacy, institutional reform, technology-driven solutions, and strengthened ADR mechanisms.

In discussing Telangana’s specific performance, Judge Raju traced the evolution of the TSLSA following the state’s formation in 2014. The Authority now oversees 33 District Legal Services Authorities, 75 Taluka Committees, 6 Permanent Lok Adalats, and 5 Mediation Centres, alongside 235 Legal Aid Clinics and 34 Prison Legal Aid Clinics. He noted the recent establishment of Legal Aid Defence Counsels (LADCs) under the 2021 scheme, with 149 LADCs currently handling over 20,000 cases.

Judge Raju highlighted TSLSA’s commitment to capacity building through mediation training, sensitisation programmes, and community mediation centres, as well as collaborations with institutions like NALSAR University, whose students have served as PLVs during Lok Adalats.

He concluded by affirming that, despite limited resources, Telangana has emerged as one of the leading states in implementing NALSA’s schemes, conducting awareness drives, and expanding access to justice through coordinated leadership, institutional cooperation, and citizen participation.

Prof. Vijay Raghavan, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) & India Justice Report (IJR)

Prof. Vijay Raghavan began by observing that Telangana has performed commendably in past IJR rankings 2nd in 2020 and 3rd in 2022 but noted a decline to 7th position in the latest report, primarily in the prison category.

Citing 2023 data, he highlighted that while national prison occupancy averages 120%, Telangana maintains occupancy below 100%, reflecting better management and infrastructure utilisation. However, internal disparities remain: prisons such as Sangareddy Central Jail (163%) and Bhongir District Jail (173%) continue to face overcrowding. He attributed Telangana’s overall performance to more effective administration and comparatively lower vacancy rates in prison staffing, though he identified critical shortages in medical personnel, with 48% vacancies in medical officers and 59% in medical staff. Additionally, women staff constitute only 6.6% of the total prison workforce an imbalance that requires immediate attention.

Drawing from over three decades of experience working in Maharashtra’s prison system, Prof. Raghavan outlined several recommendations and best practices adaptable to Telangana:

• Appointment of trained social workers and counsellors within prisons to strengthen inmates’ access to justice, family engagement, and post-release reintegration. He cited a TISS—Home Department pilot in Maharashtra where social workers in five central prisons demonstrated measurable improvement in inmate welfare.

• Expansion of Legal Aid Defence Counsels (LADCs): While LADCs have improved the quality of legal aid for undertrials, they remain overburdened. Each LADC in Mumbai, for instance, handles 200—300 cases, limiting their ability to pursue trial matters beyond bail petitions.

• Strengthening paralegal engagement: He proposed training undertrial prisoners as Paralegal Volunteers (PLVs) to act as first responders, assist fellow inmates in drafting legal applications, and improve legal literacy within prisons.

• Enhancing coordination between prisons and District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs), while addressing acute staffing shortages in Taluka Legal Services Committees (TLSCs) that hinder efficient case allocation and legal aid delivery.

Prof. Raghavan further emphasised the mental health crisis within prisons, describing it as a “silent pandemic.” He recommended the systematic appointment of psychologists and counsellors and referred to Maharashtra’s model circular directing civil surgeons to form rotating medical teams including physicians, psychiatrists, and gynecologists to conduct weekly prison visits.

He concluded by noting that prison reform is a long-term process, requiring experimentation, cross-state collaboration, and sustained commitment. His address underscored the need for a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary approach that combines legal assistance, social work, and healthcare to humanise correctional administration and expand prisoners’ access to justice.

Dr. Soumya Mishra, IPS, Director General of Prisons, Telangana

Dr. Soumya Mishra noted that Telangana’s prison administration has consciously adopted a reformative and rehabilitative model, shifting its vision from punitive incarceration to transformative correctional care.

Dr. Mishra explained the organizational hierarchy of the Telangana Prison and Correctional Services, headed by the Director General of Police (Prisons) and supported by two Inspectors General and two Deputy Inspectors General overseeing Central, District, and Sub-Jails. She noted that the state has generally maintained prison occupancy below authorized capacity, corroborating IJR findings. However, overcrowding in Sangareddy and Mahabubnagar prisons persists due to the demolition of Warangal Central Prison, whose reconstruction was stalled by fund constraints. She clarified that while prison administrators have limited control over budget allocations, proposals for expansion are underway, including incomplete extensions at Chanchalguda and Charlapally Central Prisons.

Responding to concerns raised by Prof. Raghavan, Dr. Mishra stated that vacancies in medical staff arise not within the prison department but in the Health Department, as appointments are made on deputation. Similarly, the 6.6% representation of women staff reflects the proportional ratio of women inmates (6.7%), with separate male and female staff maintained to ensure dignity and security.

Acknowledging the absence of sanctioned posts for trained social workers, Dr. Mishra highlighted the financial constraints faced by the State, noting the recent rationalisation of outsourced positions and home guards. Despite this, the Telangana Prison Department has taken proactive steps to address inmate welfare through the establishment of four Government of India—approved De-Addiction Centres at Chanchalguda, Charlapally, Karimnagar, and Nizamabad prisons. Each centre employs a psychologist, social worker, nurse, and project coordinator, all trained through collaborations with reputed NGOs. An additional de-addiction centre has been initiated for women prisoners in collaboration with the NGO Tharuni.

Dr. Mishra underscored the department’s emphasis on mental health, noting efforts to make prison environments clean, well-lit, and psychologically supportive, based on research linking environmental conditions with inmates’ mental wellbeing. Telangana’s emerging model of “Smart Prisons” integrates technology for security and efficiency including CCTV networks, baggage scanners, command-and-control centres, and digital kiosks that allow inmates to access information and services.

Reiterating the department’s motto “Thumbs in, Sign out” she explained the focus on education and reintegration. Partnerships with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University and the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) enable inmates to complete 10th and 12th-grade education. The department also organises yoga programmes, cultural festivals, and sports meets to enhance mental and physical health.

Dr. Mishra highlighted Telangana’s unique welfare initiatives, including:

• Interest-free loans for inmates’ families (education, marriage, emergency needs) repayable through prison wages.

• Insurance coverage under the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana and Suraksha Bima Yojana.

• Aadhar registration drives for inmates lacking identity documentation.

• Premature release of 213 prisoners after a four-year pause, accompanied by vocational and livelihood assistance to prevent recidivism.

Skill development remains central to Telangana’s correctional model. Inmates receive training in carpentry, metalwork, tailoring, and furniture production, with their products sold at state exhibitions like Numaish and through 30 prison-managed fuel outlets, including an all-women outlet the first of its kind in India. The department also implements eco-conscious initiatives such as waste-to-wealth projects, solar power installations, wind energy systems, and green prison programs involving afforestation and seed ball production.

Dr. Mishra concluded by emphasizing that economic empowerment and social acceptance are vital for successful reintegration. The department’s collaboration with the Telangana BeHub Society, Directorate of Industries, and civil society partners ensures standardisation, marketing, and sustainability of prison-made products. Telangana’s prison administration has also received the Scotch Award for Rehabilitation and secured the Overall Championship at the All India Prison Duty Meet 2025, demonstrating that reform, dignity, and discipline can coexist in correctional governance.

Prof. (Dr.) Murali Karnam, Director, Access to Justice for Prisoners (AJP), NALSAR University of Law

Prof. (Dr.) Murali Karnam, drawing on both empirical data and field experience, presented a critical examination of the state of legal aid and pre-trial justice in India, with a particular focus on Telangana. He began by questioning the reliability of official data sources such as the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), observing that they reflect only a fraction of the prison population approximately 18% of the total inmates. In contrast, the Telangana Prison Department’s own data paints a graver picture: in 2023, over 31,000 prisoners were admitted, and by 2024, this number rose to 41,000, marking a 30% annual increase. The population of undertrial prisoners also increased by 45%, revealing the structural persistence of pre-trial incarceration.

He noted that socioeconomic vulnerability remains a key determinant of incarceration. The share of underprivileged convicts rose from 65% in 2023 to 75% in 2024, reflecting the enduring correlation between poverty and imprisonment. Prof. Karnam argued that the quality of legal aid representation directly affects liberty outcomes, with delayed or uninformed bail processes leading to avoidable detention. For instance, in Andhra Pradesh, 24,000 prisoners were reported to have received bail in 2023 but continued to remain in custody due to their inability to satisfy bail conditions.

Prof. Karnam highlighted the deep procedural dysfunctions that undermine Article 22(1) of the Constitution the right to consult and be defended by legal counsel. While the Supreme Court has repeatedly directed that bail applications be disposed of on the same day to avoid arbitrary deprivation of liberty, he noted that, in practice, prisoners often wait ten days or more for hearing and communication of bail orders. The problem, he stressed, lies not only in delay but in non-communication: prisoners are often unaware that bail has been granted, as neither their lawyers nor the courts inform them promptly.

He called attention to the disjuncture between bail orders and release orders, observing that while the former provides substantive grounds for release, the latter merely formalises the process. The absence of timely communication especially in magistrate courts results in prisoners languishing unnecessarily despite judicial approval for release. He referenced Justice Kaul’s 2021 remarks condemning the insistence on local surety as discriminatory and “anti-National,” yet noted that such practices continue to persist, effectively criminalising poverty by turning social disadvantage into a barrier to bail.

Prof. Karnam also critiqued the Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC) system for its lack of accountability mechanisms. In many instances, prisoners report that they do not know who their lawyer is, have never been consulted about case strategy, and are uninformed about the progress of their bail or trial. This, he argued, defeats the purpose of institutional legal aid. He proposed that the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) must establish a protocol requiring LADCs to consult and communicate with their clients regularly, and that the failure to do so should trigger administrative scrutiny.

He further identified the absence of data on default bail releases and financial assistance under NALSA’s schemes, noting that implementation is sporadic and dependent on individual initiative. He urged that the right to legal advice before pleading guilty especially in jail adalats must be institutionalised, since prolonged incarceration often coerces prisoners into self-incriminating pleas in violation of the principle of voluntariness.

In his concluding remarks, Prof. Karnam framed the crisis of pre-trial detention as not merely a question of liberty but one that produces cascading social consequences: loss of livelihood, health deterioration, homelessness, family breakdown, and social exclusion. He asserted that excessive pre-trial detention undermines the presumption of innocence, corrodes public confidence in justice, and effectively criminalises poverty. Legal aid, therefore, must not be seen merely as procedural compliance but as a constitutional obligation to prevent unnecessary detention and to restore proportionality, fairness, and equality before the law.

Remarks on Legal Aid to Prisoners

Justice Sam Koshy began his closing remarks by acknowledging the depth and range of insights presented by the five speakers preceding him, each of whom had relied on extensive research and data. He expressed appreciation for the comprehensive yet contrasting perspectives from the statistical findings of the India Justice Report team to the practical reflections of Professor Murali Karnam and the optimistic assessment of Dr. Soumya Mishra, Director General of Prisons.

He noted that while the Director General’s presentation had painted a largely positive picture of prison conditions in Telangana, that image was corroborated by his own first-hand experience. Having personally visited the Chanchalguda Central Jail and the open prison at Charlapally, Justice Koshy affirmed that the ambience and atmosphere within these facilities reflected the reform-oriented spirit described by the prison authorities.

However, he cautioned that what requires greater attention are the lived realities within the prison walls the daily life of inmates and the infrastructural and psychological conditions that shape it. Echoing the earlier discussants, he stressed the importance of introspection on how to improve the quality of life within prisons rather than relying solely on structural statistics.

Justice Koshy observed that Telangana’s prison system, when compared with his experiences in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, performs significantly better. Yet, he emphasized that “better” must not be mistaken for “best.” The state still faces challenges of overcrowding, noting that the occupancy rate stands at approximately 163%, well above the optimal capacity. He urged that the immediate goal should be to bring this figure closer to 100%, ensuring that every inmate lives under humane and dignified conditions.

While the prisons are cleaner and better organized than in many other states, Justice Koshy highlighted that space constraints remain severe, particularly for undertrial prisoners. Even where overcrowding is less acute, the lack of adequate personal space and the resulting strain on basic amenities create significant hardships. He underscored the urgent need for infrastructure expansion and modernization but acknowledged that resource constraints limit the ability of governments across India to prioritize prisons in their budget allocations.

Speaking in his capacity as Chairperson of the TSLSA, he shared that the state has already proposed constructing a new central prison complex at Balanagar, following the demolition of the older Warangal Jail. He assured that he, along with the Chief Justice of Telangana, would take up the issue with the Chief Minister to expedite this project. If completed soon, it could substantially reduce the current occupancy load and improve overall living standards—progress he hoped would be reflected in the next India Justice Report.

Turning to medical infrastructure, Justice Koshy described it as another area of pressing concern. Prisons, unlike other government institutions, cannot rely on outsourced medical services; they require dedicated government doctors available within the premises. However, Telangana, like many other states, faces a shortage of regular medical officers. He noted that the government often rationalizes this shortage by citing the relatively smaller prison population compared to general hospitals and medical colleges a justification he considered insufficient. In his view, the issue lies partly in the uneven distribution of postings, with many government employees preferring urban placements, leaving peripheral and correctional institutions understaffed.

Justice Koshy then addressed the importance of psychological and social support within prisons. He agreed with the earlier speakers that every prison should have full-time social workers, counsellors, and psychologists rather than shared or part-time personnel. The nature of incarceration, he said, requires continuous monitoring and mental health care, not just periodic interventions. A counsellor visiting once or twice a month can only meet a handful of inmates, leaving the majority without any sustained psychological assistance. He urged the government to consider creating dedicated cadres of trained counsellors and social workers, ensuring round-the-clock engagement and support.

Addressing a key procedural issue raised by Professor Murali Karnam, Justice Koshy spoke about delays in the release of prisoners after bail. He explained that these delays often occur not due to judicial inaction but because of communication bottlenecks between courts, lawyers, and prison authorities. Drawing from his own experience as a former practicing lawyer, he elaborated that once a High Court grants bail, the communication typically travels through multiple layers: the High Court lawyer informs the district lawyer, who in turn contacts the client’s family. This multi-tier process, coupled with administrative or financial interests, can cause significant delay in transmitting the bail order to the prison.

Justice Koshy also mentioned that informal practices within certain advocate networks sometimes aggravate these delays, whether for administrative or financial reasons. To address this, he proposed that every court in the state should have a direct electronic channel to the prisons. Once a bail order is signed, it should be transmitted immediately and digitally to the concerned jail.

He further recommended the establishment of a 24/7 bail-order monitoring cell within each prison, with a designated officer responsible for promptly processing incoming orders and notifying the prisoner’s family. Such a system, he suggested, would minimize human intervention, reduce corruption, and ensure the swift and transparent release of inmates once bail has been granted.

Justice Koshy concluded his remarks by reiterating that prison reform and legal aid cannot be achieved in isolation. It requires coordinated efforts among all stakeholders the judiciary, prison administration, legal services authorities, social workers, and civil society. Only through such collaborative engagement, he said, can the criminal justice system translate its humanitarian objectives into effective and dignified practice.

Session III: Policing for People: Capacity to Serve the Public

Chair: Mr. Kamal Kumar, IPS (Former Director of NPA)

Speakers:

1. Mr. Vipul Mudgal, Director, Common Cause, India Justice Report

2. Ms. Shikha Goel, IPS, Director General of Police, Cyber Security Bureau and Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad

3. Mr. Srinivas Kodali, Independent Researcher

Mr. Vipul Mudgal, Director, Common Cause, India Justice Report

Mr. Vipul Mudgal explained the objective of the India Justice Report (IJR) and its approach to assessing police performance based on standards defined by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Bureau of Police Research & Development. He said that states like Telangana rank well because the evaluation uses consistent external benchmarks rather than internal, relative standards alone.

He described a serious problem of police understaffing across India, noting that a vacancy rate of nearly 33% persists nationally, with Telangana’s rate exceeding the average 22%. Mr. Mudgal said that women’s representation in the police force remains particularly low, citing Telangana’s figure of 0.5% women personnel. He added that even though several chief ministers have committed to having at least one-third women policemen, at the current rate of increase, Telangana will take 22 years to reach that mark.

He further mentioned that the recruitment of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe officers continues to fall short, and the government does not maintain data on other minorities. Mr. Mudgal pointed out that Telangana’s forensic science department operates with over 90% vacancies, which severely compromises forensic investigations and causes case backlogs.

Concerning police budgets, he said that while allocations do exist, the expenditure on training and capacity-building is “pathetic,” standing at only about 1.1% of total spending. He stressed that a lack of political will and leadership causes major inefficiencies. Mr. Mudgal advocated for mandatory weekly offs for police personnel, arguing it would increase productivity and affirmed it as a constitutional right.

Referring to the sixth Common Cause report, Mr. Mudgal highlighted the disturbing tolerance of torture within the police force. He said that surveys showed more than two-thirds of police officers endorsed the idea that police should be able to detain and interrogate accused persons without judicial intervention. He also referred to the alarming fact that 28% of officers strongly supported detention without trial, while only 12% strongly opposed it. Mr. Mudgal recounted how data from the NHRC and NCRB differ regarding custodial deaths, underscoring systemic failures in accountability. He said that doctors, magistrates, and the NHRC itself have often failed to meet their responsibilities when investigating custodial death cases.

Ms. Shikha Goel Kodali, IPS, Director of General of Police, Cyber Security Bureau and Forensic Laboratories, Hyderabad

Ms. Shikha Goel Kodali shared her experience of over 30 years in policing. She said that Telangana police have maintained consistent performance, ensuring public safety, especially in Hyderabad. She explained that the anti-Naxalite strategy continued uninterrupted after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh due to strong institutional continuity and political support.

Ms. Kodali emphasized the successful adoption of technological innovations in Telangana, mentioning systems such as e-challan, online complaint portals, and the widespread use of body-worn cameras. She said that Telangana’s Bharosa Centres and SHE Teams have become models replicated in multiple states across India. She added that the police response time in Hyderabad averages about six to eight minutes, reflecting the efficiency of these initiatives.

She candidly explained recruitment challenges, saying that many candidates arriving for policing posts were inadequately prepared. She praised the police department’s efforts at enhanced training, both indoors and outdoors, to help candidates pass requisite examinations. Ms. Kodali applauded investments in artificial intelligence and the introduction of weekly rest days, stressing that these steps fostered a culture of innovation and a more approachable police force.

Mr. Srinivas Kodali, Independent Researcher

Mr. Srinivas Kodali provided an extensive explanation of the concept of real-time policing in India, blending science, technology, and societal understanding. He described how cybernetics and complexity science underpin modern policing systems, emphasizing their interconnected, deterministic, and algorithm-driven nature.

He elaborated that Hyderabad’s CCTV surveillance is uniquely networked across the city, all connected to a central command center. He contrasted this with less integrated systems in other Indian cities. Mr. Kodali said that policing has shifted from traditional beat assignments to the use of algorithms that determine resource deployment based on societal data patterns.

He explained that policing administrative procedures such as those computerized through applications like TS Cop- often operate outside explicit constitutional or judicial codification, instead relying on coded administrative rules. Mr. Kodali said this leads to significant information asymmetry, especially because police manuals remain inaccessible to the public, and this secrecy extends to administrative procedures and data collected.

Using principles from complexity theory and chaos science, he illustrated how policing systems produce non-linear and unpredictable outcomes, making “truth” in police investigations technologically and socially mediated rather than purely legal. He highlighted judicial cases challenging intrusive administrative practices related to profiling and identification.

Mr. Kodali concluded by noting that Telangana’s policing innovations are being emulated nationally, signaling a shift in Indian law enforcement towards digitally integrated, data-driven policing systems with wide social implications