FROM RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE TO REFORMATIVE JUSTICE:  A POSITIVE SHIFT IN CRIMINAL LAW PARADIGM

Abstract

The evolution of criminal justice systems globally reflects a significant paradigm shift from retributive to reformative justice models. Retributive justice, grounded in the principle of proportional punishment, emphasizes retribution and deterrence, often neglecting the rehabilitation of offenders and the needs of victims. In contrast, reformative justice focuses on rehabilitating offenders, addressing the root causes of criminal behaviour, and facilitating their reintegration into society.

This transition is driven by growing recognition of the limitations of punitive approaches, including high recidivism rates and prison overcrowding, and the potential benefits of restorative practices that promote healing for victims, accountability for offenders, and community involvement. The paper examines this shift through theoretical frameworks, comparative analyses, and case studies, highlighting the positive outcomes associated with reformative justice, such as reduced reoffending and enhanced community cohesion.

Case studies from various jurisdictions illustrate the practical application and benefits of reformative justice. In North Carolina, a pioneering restorative justice case involved a family choosing forgiveness over prison for a violent killing, leading to the offender’s rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Similarly, tribal courts in the U.S. are increasingly adopting holistic methods that emphasize healing and wellness, focusing on addressing underlying issues like substance abuse and personal trauma. In Canada, the Supreme Court’s decision in R v Gladue mandated that courts consider the unique circumstances of Indigenous offenders, leading to the development of “Gladue reports” that inform more appropriate and rehabilitative sentencing.

Despite these advancements, challenges persist in implementing reformative justice models, including legal, institutional, and societal barriers. Critics argue that such approaches may undermine the seriousness of certain crimes and fail to provide adequate deterrence. However, evidence suggests that reformative justice can lead to positive outcomes, such as reduced recidivism, improved victim satisfaction, and enhanced community cohesion.

This research underscores the necessity of embracing reformative justice as a means to create a more humane, effective, and equitable criminal justice system. By shifting the focus from punishment to rehabilitation, societies can address the root causes of criminal behaviour, promote healing for victims, and foster safer communities.

Keywords

Reformative Justice, Retributive Justice, Criminal Law, Rehabilitation, Restorative Justice, Human Rights, Judicial Reforms, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Indian Judiciary, Criminal Justice System, Recidivism, Victim-Centric Justice, Alternative Sentencing, Global Justice Models, Penal Reform.

Literature Review

1. Foundations of Retributive Justice

Retributive justice, rooted in the principle of lex talionis (“an eye for an eye”), emphasizes proportionate punishment for wrongdoing. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant and G.W.F. Hegel argued that punishment is a moral imperative, asserting that justice requires offenders to suffer consequences equivalent to their crimes. This approach prioritizes deterrence and societal retribution over rehabilitation. Historically, such punitive measures have been prevalent across various legal systems, often focusing on the offense rather than the offender’s potential for reform.

2. Emergence of Reformative Justice

Contrastingly, reformative justice centers on rehabilitating offenders, addressing the underlying causes of criminal behavior, and facilitating reintegration into society. Cesare Beccaria, in his seminal work On Crimes and Punishments, advocated for proportionate punishment aimed at preventing future crimes rather than exacting vengeance. In the Indian context, Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of “hate the sin, not the sinner” underscores the potential for personal transformation. Justice Krishna Iyer echoed this sentiment in Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, emphasizing that every individual has the capacity for change.

3. Judicial Endorsement in India

The Indian judiciary has progressively embraced reformative principles. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court highlighted the state’s duty to rehabilitate prisoners and uphold their human rights. Similarly, the Allahabad High Court, in a 2021 judgment, emphasized the necessity of proportional punishment and the importance of rehabilitation over undue harshness.

4. Legislative Reforms and Policy Shifts

Recent legislative changes reflect a shift towards reformative justice. The enactment of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) introduces community service as a punitive measure for certain offenses, moving away from purely custodial sentences. This aligns with global trends emphasizing restorative practices and acknowledges the limitations of retributive approaches in addressing the root causes of crime.

5. Comparative International Perspectives

Countries like Norway have long prioritized rehabilitation over punishment, resulting in low recidivism rates. Their prison systems focus on education, vocational training, and psychological support. Similarly, the Netherlands employs alternative sanctions, such as fines and community service, especially for minor offenses, emphasizing reintegration over incarceration.

6. Challenges to Implementation

Despite the theoretical appeal of reformative justice, practical challenges persist. In India, issues like prison overcrowding, limited resources, and societal attitudes favoring punitive measures hinder the effective implementation of rehabilitative programs. Moreover, systemic discrimination, as highlighted in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, underscores the need for structural reforms to ensure equitable treatment within the justice system.

7. Restorative Justice: A Complementary Approach

Restorative justice, focusing on repairing harm and involving victims, offenders, and the community, offers a complementary perspective. In S v Shilubane, the South African judiciary advocated for alternative sentencing, emphasizing the benefits of community service and restitution over incarceration for minor offenses. Such approaches aim to foster accountability and reconciliation, aligning with reformative principles.

Research Methodology

1. Research Design

This research follows a qualitative, doctrinal approach, focusing on legal principles, judicial interpretations, legislative texts, and scholarly opinions. The objective is to critically examine the shift from retributive to reformative justice in criminal law and its implications for legal systems, particularly in India with comparative insights from international jurisdictions.

2. Nature of Study

The study is:

• Descriptive: It describes the evolution and features of both retributive and reformative justice systems.
• Analytical: It analyses court judgments, legislative developments, and the socio-legal impact of shifting paradigms.
• Comparative: It compares Indian criminal justice developments with international practices (e.g., Norway, Canada, South Africa).

3. Sources of Data

This research primarily relies on secondary data, collected from:

• Primary Legal Sources:
  • Constitutions and statutes (e.g., IPC, CrPC, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)
  • Case law from the Supreme Court and High Courts of India (e.g., Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admin, Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P.)
• Secondary Sources:
  • Academic journals and legal commentaries
  • Reports and policy papers from institutions (e.g., NCRB, Law Commission of India)
  • Newspaper articles, interviews, and media coverage of relevant criminal justice cases
  • Online legal databases such as SCC Online, Manupatra, JSTOR, HeinOnline

4. Jurisdictional Focus

The core focus is on India, while also incorporating comparative international perspectives from:

• Norway (rehabilitative prison models)
• South Africa (restorative justice in courts)
• Canada (Indigenous justice and Gladue principles)

5. Method of Analysis

The data is analyzed using:

• Content Analysis: To interpret and evaluate relevant legal texts and judicial pronouncements.
• Comparative Legal Analysis: To highlight the differences and similarities in criminal justice systems.
• Case Study Method: Select cases are studied in-depth to illustrate how reformative justice is applied in practice.

6. Limitations of the Study

• The study does not involve empirical fieldwork or interviews.
• It is based on publicly available legal material and may not capture all on-ground implementation challenges.
• The research is limited to English-language sources and Indian laws primarily, with selective international references.

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a tentative assumption made to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. In this research, the hypotheses are framed to assess the shift from retributive to reformative justice within the criminal law system, particularly in the Indian context.

Primary Hypothesis

• H₁: The shift from retributive justice to reformative justice represents a more effective and humane approach to criminal justice, leading to lower recidivism, better offender rehabilitation, and enhanced social reintegration.

Supporting/Sub-Hypotheses

• H₁a: Reformative justice models address the root causes of criminal behavior more effectively than retributive models.
• H₁b: Judicial and legislative developments in India indicate a growing preference for reformative justice principles.
• H₁c: Societies that adopt reformative justice practices experience improved outcomes in terms of community safety and offender reintegration.
• H₁d: The integration of restorative justice practices alongside reformative approaches can increase victim satisfaction and offender accountability.

Theoretical Foundations

Understanding the theoretical underpinnings of criminal justice models is crucial to appreciating the shift from retributive to reformative justice. These theories offer insights into the rationale behind different modes of punishment and societal responses to crime.

A. Retributive Justice

Retributive justice is one of the oldest forms of punishment theory and is fundamentally based on the idea of “just deserts” — that a person who has committed a wrongful act deserves to suffer a punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. The concept finds its roots in Kantian moral philosophy, which emphasizes that individuals should be treated as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end. According to Immanuel Kant, punishing an offender is not merely justified but is a moral imperative to uphold justice.[2]

This theory maintains that punishment serves both a retributive and deterrent function — retributive in the sense that justice is served through proportional punishment, and deterrent in that fear of such punishment may discourage future crimes.[3] Retributive justice is backward-looking, focusing on the past act of wrongdoing, rather than the future reform of the offender.

Despite its strong moral appeal, retributive justice has been criticized on various grounds. Critics argue that it fails to consider the broader socio-economic and psychological factors that may drive individuals to commit crimes.[4] It is also said to be overly punitive and does little to prevent recidivism, as it neither addresses the root causes of criminal behavior nor provides offenders with the means or motivation to reform.[5]

B. Reformative Justice

In contrast, reformative justice, also known as rehabilitative or corrective justice, is forward-looking and focuses on the transformation of the offender. The key premise of reformative justice is that crime is not simply a moral failing but often the outcome of structural inequalities, lack of education, poverty, mental health issues, and social marginalization.[6] Reformative justice, therefore, seeks to create conditions that enable the offender to reintegrate into society as a responsible and productive member.

The origins of reformative justice can be traced back to Cesare Beccaria and later John Howard, who argued for humane treatment of prisoners and emphasized the need for penitentiaries to function as places of reform rather than revenge.[7] Modern reformative justice approaches include counseling, vocational training, psychological support, education programs, and opportunities for restorative dialogue with victims.[8]

This model is gaining momentum worldwide due to growing recognition that incarceration alone does not ensure justice or social peace. Instead, systems that prioritize rehabilitation and social reintegration are more effective in reducing repeat offenses. For instance, countries such as Norway and Finland have adopted this model with significant success, reflected in their low recidivism rates and humane prison systems.[9]

While reformative justice may not be suitable for all crimes — particularly heinous offenses — its principles have found increasing acceptance in modern legal systems that value restorative practices, human dignity, and constitutional morality.[10] It represents not a softening of justice, but an evolution towards a more rational, humane, and sustainable approach to dealing with crime and criminals.

Comparative Analysis: Retributive vs. Reformative Justice

The transition from retributive to reformative justice represents not just a change in penal philosophy but a profound transformation in how societies understand crime and respond to it. A comparative analysis between the two models reveals fundamental differences in their approach, objectives, and outcomes.

Aspect	Retributive Justice	Reformative Justice
Focus	Punishment of the offender for the wrongdoing committed	Rehabilitation of the offender to reintegrate into society
Objective	To deter future crimes through fear and ensure proportional retribution	To reduce recidivism by transforming the offender’s behavior and addressing root causes
View of Crime	A moral and legal violation requiring proportionate punishment	Often a symptom of socio-economic, psychological, or systemic issues
Role of the Victim	Minimal involvement; primarily a state-centric process	Victim has an active role in dialogue and reconciliation
Outcome	Satisfaction of legal vengeance; retributive closure	Offender reform, community healing, and long-term public safety

This comparison shows that retributive justice tends to isolate the offender from society without addressing the root causes of criminal behavior, while reformative justice offers a more constructive and restorative approach, aiming to rebuild individuals and promote community harmony.[11] The holistic nature of reformative justice recognizes that addressing crime requires more than punishment—it demands restoration, reconciliation, and reintegration.[12]

Global Perspectives on Reformative Justice

The success of reformative justice can be more clearly understood by observing how different countries have implemented it. These models provide valuable lessons and comparative insights for legal systems undergoing reform.

A. Norway

Norway is often cited as a global benchmark for reformative justice. The country’s correctional philosophy is built around the principle of “normality” — the idea that life inside prison should resemble life outside as closely as possible, to aid reintegration.[13] Prisons like Halden and Bastøy emphasize dignity, autonomy, and rehabilitation. Prisoners are provided access to education, employment training, therapy, and recreational activities, and they are treated with respect by correctional officers who are trained as mentors rather than enforcers.[14]

The impact is profound: Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world, hovering around 20%, compared to over 70% in the United States.[15] This success illustrates how reformative justice, when properly supported with infrastructure and political will, can produce a safer and more humane society.

B. Canada

Canada has made substantial efforts to incorporate restorative justice, particularly for Indigenous communities, who have long suffered from systemic discrimination and over-incarceration. The Canadian criminal justice system recognizes that Indigenous offenders face unique social and historical disadvantages, a fact acknowledged in R v Gladue, which directs courts to consider restorative sentencing for Indigenous persons.[16]

One of the key features of Canada’s approach is the use of healing circles, where victims, offenders, families, and community members come together to discuss the offense and agree on a way forward.[17] These practices draw from traditional Indigenous methods of dispute resolution and focus on restoring relationships and addressing the harm caused by crime.[18]

By emphasizing cultural sensitivity, reconciliation, and community-based solutions, Canada’s approach demonstrates that reformative justice can be tailored to the needs of specific populations.

C. South Africa

In the wake of apartheid, South Africa turned to restorative justice as a means to address historical injustices and build a unified society. The most prominent example of this was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), established in 1995 under Archbishop Desmond Tutu.[19]

The TRC offered perpetrators of apartheid-era crimes the opportunity to confess their actions publicly and seek amnesty, while also giving victims a platform to share their experiences.[20] Though controversial, the TRC is widely regarded as a landmark experiment in transitional justice, emphasizing truth, healing, and national reconciliation over retribution.[21]

This model highlighted the power of reformative justice not just in individual cases, but in healing collective trauma and fostering long-term peace and unity.

The Indian Context: Transitioning Towards Reformative Justice

A. Historical Overview

India’s criminal justice framework has historically drawn heavily from the colonial legacy, particularly the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, drafted under Lord Macaulay during British rule. This system emphasized punitive and retributive approaches, focusing on imprisonment and capital punishment to maintain law and order.[22] The IPC, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act were designed for control, not reform, often neglecting the rehabilitative needs of the offender.

However, post-independence, there has been a gradual ideological shift in both policy and practice. The Constitution of India, with its emphasis on dignity of the individual and reformative justice (Article 21), laid the foundation for a more humane approach.[23] The shift is evident in various judicial pronouncements, legislative reforms, and the evolving discourse around alternative sentencing, prison reform, and juvenile justice.

B. Legislative Reforms

A notable milestone in India’s reformative justice movement is the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, intended to replace the Indian Penal Code. The BNS signals a paradigm shift, moving away from colonial terminology and incorporating progressive penal provisions.[24]

One of its most significant reformative features is the inclusion of community service as a mode of punishment for select minor offenses.[25] This is a clear attempt to move towards non-custodial measures which are aimed at restoring offenders back into society rather than isolating them through incarceration. The BNS also places greater emphasis on victim compensation, restorative mechanisms, and procedural efficiency — hallmarks of reformative jurisprudence.

C. Judicial Endorsements

Indian courts have increasingly acknowledged the importance of rehabilitation, reintegration, and human dignity. In Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P., the Supreme Court of India observed:

“The modern approach should be to reform the individual offender as part of the social defense strategy.”[26]

Similarly, in Mohd. Arif v. Supreme Court of India, the Court stressed the need to review the death penalty jurisprudence in light of human rights and international norms.[27] Other decisions, such as State of Haryana v. Jagdish, recognize that premature release and parole should depend on the rehabilitative progress of the prisoner, rather than just retributive yardsticks.[28]

These cases reflect a growing judicial awareness that justice must heal and restore, not merely punish, aligning with reformative principles.

Case Studies Illustrating the Shift

A. Restorative Justice in Practice (UK)

Restorative justice programs in the United Kingdom have demonstrated the practical benefits of shifting from punitive to restorative models. One such example involves a burglary case facilitated by Restorative Solutions UK, where the offender and victim engaged in a mediated dialogue. The offender apologized, and a restitution agreement was reached. The victim expressed satisfaction, stating that the process provided closure, and the offender was less likely to reoffend.[29]

Such initiatives, supported by the UK Ministry of Justice, have been shown to reduce recidivism by up to 14% and improve victim satisfaction and offender accountability.[30]

B. Tribal Courts in the United States

In the United States, tribal courts have been pioneers in incorporating holistic and community-driven justice systems. Programs such as the Healing to Wellness Courts among Native American tribes focus on treatment over punishment, particularly for issues like substance abuse.[31]

These courts emphasize counseling, cultural education, family support, and community engagement to rehabilitate offenders. Judges, community leaders, and social workers work together to ensure that justice is served not only legally but spiritually and socially.[32] This model has led to improved health outcomes, reduced crime, and strengthened community bonds.

Challenges in Implementing Reformative Justice

Despite its potential benefits, the implementation of reformative justice faces several systemic and practical challenges:

1. Resource Constraints

Reformative justice requires institutional investment in educational programs, mental health counseling, vocational training, and skilled rehabilitation professionals. Most Indian prisons are overcrowded and underfunded, making the implementation of effective reform measures a logistical and financial burden.[33]

2. Public Perception

A significant roadblock is societal resistance, often influenced by a punitive mindset. Many view reformative approaches as soft on crime, especially in cases involving serious offenses. Political discourse and media narratives sometimes reinforce the demand for retributive justice as an expression of public outrage, complicating reform efforts.[34]

3. Legal and Policy Framework

While recent reforms like the BNS are promising, a comprehensive legislative overhaul is still pending. Several procedural laws and sentencing practices continue to operate under retributive assumptions, limiting the scope of reformative interventions.[35] Legal awareness and training of law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges remain inconsistent.

4. Monitoring and Evaluation

To assess the success of reformative justice programs, robust monitoring frameworks are essential. However, India currently lacks a centralized mechanism for tracking rehabilitation outcomes, recidivism rates, and post-release integration.[36] Without reliable data, it is difficult to measure the long-term efficacy of these reforms or justify their expansion.

Conclusion

The evolution from retributive justice to reformative justice marks a pivotal and necessary transformation in the modern criminal law paradigm. This shift reflects a deeper understanding of crime as a social construct, influenced by a myriad of psychological, economic, and environmental factors. The traditional retributive model, focused on punishment and deterrence, has long dominated legal systems across the globe. However, as societies evolve and democratic values strengthen, there is increasing recognition that mere punishment neither heals the victim nor rehabilitates the offender — and often fails to prevent future crimes.

Reformative justice, by contrast, represents a human-centered, constructive, and sustainable approach to criminal behavior. It prioritizes the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into society, while also seeking restorative mechanisms that involve victims and communities in the healing process. This model not only acknowledges the potential for change in individuals but also affirms the dignity, rights, and worth of all stakeholders involved in the justice process. Evidence from jurisdictions like Norway, Canada, and tribal courts in the U.S. illustrates the transformative impact of reform-oriented practices — reducing recidivism, fostering community harmony, and empowering victims.

In the Indian context, this shift is evident in both judicial pronouncements and legislative reforms, such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which introduces community service and emphasizes non-custodial measures. Landmark cases such as Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P. further underscore the judiciary’s evolving commitment to reformative principles. These developments indicate a growing realization that true justice is not about vengeance, but about restoration, education, and reintegration.

Nonetheless, the path toward fully institutionalizing reformative justice is not without its challenges. Resource limitations, public skepticism, and gaps in the legal and institutional framework continue to impede its widespread implementation. Furthermore, measuring the success of reformative initiatives — in terms of reduced recidivism, behavioral change, and community restoration — remains a complex task requiring robust policy support and continuous evaluation.

Despite these challenges, the benefits of reformative justice are compelling and undeniable. A criminal justice system rooted in reformative ideals is not only more humane and equitable, but also more effective in fostering long-term social peace and individual transformation. It aligns with constitutional values, international human rights standards, and the evolving demands of modern democratic societies.

In conclusion, the transition from retributive to reformative justice should not be viewed merely as a legal reform but as a moral and social imperative. It calls for a reimagining of justice — one that heals instead of harms, restores instead of retaliates, and empowers instead of punishes. As nations continue to confront the complexities of crime and justice in the 21st century, embracing the reformative model offers a hopeful, inclusive, and sustainable path forward for criminal jurisprudence.

---

[1] Authored by Aashna Bansal

[2]Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals (Mary Gregor tr, Cambridge University Press 1996) 105.

[3]Andrew von Hirsch, Censure and Sanctions (Oxford University Press 1993) 9–14

[4]Jeffrie G Murphy, Retribution Reconsidered: More Essays in the Philosophy of Law (Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992) 42.

[5]Antony Duff, Punishment, Communication, and Community (Oxford University Press 2001) 20–25.

[6]Michael Tonry, Thinking About Crime: Sense and Sensibility in American Penal Culture (Oxford University Press 2004) 47.

[7]Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments (David Young tr, Hackett Publishing 1986) ch 12.

[8]Howard Zehr, The Little Book of Restorative Justice (Good Books 2002) 14–18.

[9]Baz Dreisinger, Incarceration Nations: A Journey to Justice in Prisons Around the World (Other Press 2016) ch 3.

[10]Law Commission of India, Report No. 277: Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies (August 2018) 32.

[11]Andrew Ashworth and Lucia Zedner, Preventive Justice (Oxford University Press 2014) 71.

[12]Antony Duff, Punishment, Communication, and Community (Oxford University Press 2001) 23.

[13]Are Høidal, ‘Why Norway’s prison system is so successful’ (BBC News, 7 December 2013)

[14]Baz Dreisinger, Incarceration Nations: A Journey to Justice in Prisons Around the World (Other Press 2016) 65–68.

[15]Berit Johnsen, The Norwegian Correctional Service: A Model for the Future? (Scandinavian Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 2019) 78(3): 321–330.

[16]R v Gladue [1999] 1 SCR 688.

[17]Canadian Department of Justice, ‘Restorative Justice in Canada: An Overview’ (Justice.gc.ca, 2017)

[18] Rupert Ross, Returning to the Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice (Penguin Canada 2006) 142–149.

[19]Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act 34 of 1995 (South Africa).

[20]Desmond Tutu, No Future Without Forgiveness (Image 2000) 52–75

[21]Priscilla Hayner, Unspeakable Truths: Transitional Justice and the Challenge of Truth Commissions (Routledge 2011) ch 4

[22]K Chokshi, ‘India’s Penal Code and the Colonial Legacy’ (2015) 48(3) Indian Journal of Criminology 120–124

[23]Constitution of India 1950, art 21

[24]PRS Legislative Research, ‘The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Analysis of Key Provisions’ (PRS, December 2023)

[25]Indian Journal of Legal Review, ‘Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: India’s Move Towards Reformative Criminal Jurisprudence’ (IJLR, 2024) 6(2): 45–53

[26]Mohd. Giasuddin v State of A.P. (1977) 3 SCC 287 [9]

[27]Mohd. Arif v Supreme Court of India (2014) 9 SCC 737

[28]State of Haryana v Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216

[29]Restorative Solutions UK, ‘Case Studies in Restorative Justice’

[30]UK Ministry of Justice, ‘Restorative Justice Action Plan 2020’

[31]AP News, ‘Tribal Wellness Courts Focus on Healing over Incarceration’ (AP, 2023)

[32]Healing to Wellness Court, US Department of Justice, ‘Tribal Law and Policy Institute Resources’

[33]National Crime Records Bureau, Prison Statistics India 2022 (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2023) 18–22

[34]G Rajagopal, ‘Media Trials and Public Sentiment: Challenges for Criminal Justice Reform’ (2022) 34(1) Indian Bar Review 67

[35]Law Commission of India, Report No. 268: Amendments in Criminal Law (March 2022) 44–46

[36]Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), ‘Reforming India’s Prisons: Need for Oversight and Transparency’ (CHRI 2021)