State-wise Implementation of Prison Visitorial Systems in India

India’s prisons have long operated as closed institutions – high walls, limited public scrutiny, and an administration largely left to its own devices. To address this opacity, Section 59(25) of the Prisons Act, 1894 empowered state governments to frame rules for the “appointment and guidance of visitors of prisons.” What emerged from this provision is the visitorial system – a structured mechanism through which both official and non-official visitors periodically inspect prisons, hear prisoner grievances, and report to the government. Each state has exercised this power differently, resulting in a diverse patchwork of rules, compositions, and practices that reflect both local priorities and persistent governance gaps.

The legal foundation: Section 59(25) and the Board of Visitors 🔗

The visitorial system is not a modern invention. As far back as 1894, the colonial government recognized that community oversight of prisons would be valuable for humane prison management. The Prisons Act, however, did not embed this in its main body – it was tucked into Section 59, under rule-making powers. This placement has had long-term consequences: since visitorial rules are subordinate legislation, their enforcement depends heavily on the political will of individual state governments.

Under this framework, every state is required to constitute a Board of Visitors (BOV) for each prison. The Board combines official visitors – such as district officials, judicial officers, and members of the state legislature – with non-official visitors (NOVs), who are reputed members of the local community. Together, they are expected to inspect prisons, review conditions, listen to prisoner grievances, and recommend improvements to the prison administration. The District Magistrate or Divisional Commissioner typically oversees the constitution of these Boards and prepares a roster to ensure regular monthly visits.

The Indian Jails Committee of 1919-20, chaired by Sir Alexander Cardew, devoted an entire chapter to improving this system. It recommended that non-official visitors be selected based on “definite qualifications, such as an interest in prison matters or other social work,” not merely on social status or political connections. Decades later, these ideals remain aspirational in most states.

How different states have structured the visitorial system 🔗

Maharashtra: A model for non-official visitor selection 🔗

Maharashtra stands out for having one of the more well-articulated legal provisions for appointing non-official visitors. Rule 6 of Chapter XV of the Maharashtra Prison Manual specifies that non-official visitors must be persons who, in the state government’s opinion, are genuinely interested in prison administration and are likely to take interest in prisoners’ welfare – both during incarceration and after release. This criterion goes beyond mere social prominence and tries to ensure that the appointees bring a reform-oriented perspective. The Board constituted under the District Magistrate or Divisional Commissioner is required to hold meetings periodically, with a focus on reviewing the overall state of the prison and conditions of inmates. The Maharashtra framework is considered by prison reform advocates as a template other states should emulate.

Madhya Pradesh: A studied but struggling system 🔗

Madhya Pradesh has received significant scholarly and civil society attention because of the documented gap between its rules and actual practice. The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) conducted a field study across seven jails in Madhya Pradesh and found that while the Madhya Pradesh Jail Manual [1987] contains detailed provisions for official and non-official visitors, implementation was deeply inadequate. The Madhya Pradesh Human Rights Commission had previously flagged that 73 out of 113 functional jails were overcrowded, with occupancy ranging from 100 to over 300 percent in some sub-jails. Against this backdrop, the visiting system – which should have been flagging these issues – was barely functional.

Official visitors in Madhya Pradesh include the District Magistrate, Sessions Judge, District Medical Officer, and Members of the Legislative Assembly. Non-official visitors are appointed separately for central, district, circle, and sub-jails, in diminishing numbers based on the size of the prison. The period of appointment is typically two years, after which fresh nominations must be made – a process that is often delayed or ignored in practice. The Madhya Pradesh High Court itself expressed shock in one case where a prisoner died of medical negligence, directly questioning whether the prison visitors had ever discharged their statutory duties.

Andhra Pradesh: Appointment after judicial nudging 🔗

Andhra Pradesh is an instructive example of how court intervention can catalyse compliance with visitorial obligations. According to CHRI’s 2005 report on the prison visiting system in Andhra Pradesh, the state government began appointing non-official visitors to various prisons from 1997 onward – but largely following pressure from the High Court. The AP Prison Rules, 1979 govern the visitorial framework, and official visitors in the state include the District Collector, District Judge, Director of Medical and Health Services, and District Educational Officers, among others.

The CHRI study, based on visits to 20 prisons and interviews with 66 prisoners, 53 NOVs, and 17 prison doctors, found that even after the appointments began, the system was far from effective. Boards of Visitors were rarely constituted in any meaningful sense; visitors were unaware of their roles; visiting notes were poorly maintained; and the mechanism for addressing grievances was largely non-functional. The selection criteria for NOVs remained loose, resulting in poor diversity in terms of gender, professional background, and class. The report made specific recommendations to amend Chapter IV of the AP Prison Rules, 1979, to bring them in line with contemporary standards.

Punjab: A structured official visitor framework 🔗

Punjab maintains a structured prison administration with 10 central jails, making it one of the states with significant prison infrastructure. Punjab’s prison rules provide for official visitors that include judicial officers and senior district administrators who are expected to make periodic visits. The state’s framework reflects the general model where the District Magistrate plays a central role in constituting and supervising the Board of Visitors. Like other states, Punjab requires NOVs to be appointed by the state government, typically on the recommendation of the Collector or Divisional Commissioner. However, civil society engagement with the visitorial system in Punjab remains limited compared to Maharashtra or Madhya Pradesh, and detailed independent studies of its functioning are scarce.

Tamil Nadu: Reforming under judicial direction 🔗

Tamil Nadu presents a case where the courts have taken a particularly active role in reforming the visitorial system. The Madras High Court, in a 2023 decision, issued a series of directions after noting that Tamil Nadu had not meaningfully implemented the prison visiting system under the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, and had also failed to align those rules with the Model Prison Manual, 2016. The Court directed that Boards of Visitors be constituted in all prisons, that minutes of BOV meetings be uploaded on official websites district-wise, and that the Inspector General of Prisons prepare annual reports compiling visitor remarks and the action taken in response. It also directed the state to prepare a “Prisoners’ Rights Handbook” – a clear indicator that prisoners themselves remain unaware of their entitlements under the existing visitorial framework.

Common features across state systems 🔗

Despite regional variations, several features are common across state visitorial frameworks. In most states, official visitors are ex-officio – they hold visitorial responsibilities as part of their primary government role. Non-official visitors, on the other hand, are specially nominated, usually for a two-year term. As mandated by the Model Prison Manual, nominations for NOVs are forwarded to the government by the Inspector General of Prisons in consultation with the District Magistrate, and all appointments are notified in the State Gazette.

The duties of visitors are broadly uniform across state rules. Every visitor is expected to inspect all parts of the prison, satisfy themselves that rules and laws governing prison management are being followed, hear and inquire into prisoner complaints (out of earshot but within sight of accompanying officers), and inspect relevant records. The Board of Visitors, when it meets, is expected to review the overall state of the prison and submit remarks and recommendations to the government.

There are also common restrictions across state rules. Visitors cannot issue orders to jail subordinates, cannot touch rations in the kitchen (though they may taste the food), and are generally prohibited from publicly disclosing matters related to prison administration without prior approval. The restriction on publicity has been criticized by prison reform advocates as an outdated provision that undermines the transparency the visitorial system was designed to promote.

The role of courts and central guidance 🔗

The Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored the importance of the visitorial system. In the landmark case Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (WP 406 of 2013), the Court directed all state governments to constitute Boards of Visitors in accordance with Chapter XXIX of the Model Prison Manual, 2016, and specified that eminent members of society must be included to drive genuine prison reform. The deadline set by the Court – 30 November 2017 – was itself an acknowledgment that states had been systematically non-compliant for years.

At the central level, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued an advisory in February 2011 urging states to improve the appointment and functioning of non-official visitors. It recommended regular sensitization and training programmes for NOVs, to be organized by state prison training institutes. The Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) subsequently included prison oversight mechanisms – including the BOV – in Unit 14 of its Training Manual for Basic Course for Prison Officers (2018), recognizing that awareness at the institutional level is a prerequisite for the system to function at all.

Why the system underperforms – and what it means for prisoners 🔗

Despite a century of legal existence, the visitorial system across Indian states is widely acknowledged to be dysfunctional. Prison staff frequently treat visitors as an unnecessary intrusion, and non-official visitors – lacking institutional support, training, or accountability – reduce their role to a clerical formality. In many states, Boards of Visitors are not constituted at all, or meet so rarely as to be meaningless. The absence of any penalty for non-compliance makes the entire framework toothless.

For prisoners, this failure has direct consequences. Overcrowding goes unreported. Grievances go unheard. Medical negligence goes undetected. The visitorial system was designed to be the one point where the prison institution “bumps into society” – where a closed, opaque environment is opened to external scrutiny. When that mechanism fails, it is the most vulnerable – undertrial prisoners who may have been wrongly detained, prisoners in need of medical care, those facing custodial abuse – who bear the cost.

A transparent and accountable prison system is not just a human rights requirement; it is a constitutional obligation. The right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution extends inside prison walls, and an effective visitorial system is one of the most practical tools available to ensure that this right is not merely theoretical.

What do you think? Given that India’s visitorial system has been legally mandated since 1894 and repeatedly endorsed by courts, why do you think state governments continue to allow Boards of Visitors to remain non-functional – and what structural changes would make prison oversight genuinely effective? If you were appointed a non-official visitor to a prison in your district, what would your first priority be upon entering?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2273
2. https://humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/prisons/prisons_visiting_system_in%20India.pdf
3. https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/content/prison-visiting-system
4. https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/prisons/prison_visiting_system.pdf
5. https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/prisons/prison_visiting_system_andhra_pradesh_2005.pdf
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_India
7. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/01/13/madars-high-court-prison-administration-needs-to-be-reformed-to-create-a-better-environment-and-prison-culture-to-ensure-that-prisoners-enjoy-their-right-to-dignified-life-leg/
8. https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/content/improving-prison-conditions