Reimagining Probation in India: A Conceptual Analysis of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Its Jurisprudence, and Institutional Challenges
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55829/1rjrq174Keywords:
Probation of Offenders Act (1958), Rehabilitative Justice, Constitutional Rights (Article 21), Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs), Institutional Challenges in ProbationAbstract
The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (POA) was the first Act which started to shift the Indian penal system from punitive to rehabilitative. This Act had an objective to combat prison overcrowding, staving off the criminal socialization process, and giving offenders the chance at social reintegration. However, the Probation remains underused and the system viciously bypasses all the implementers. This paper approaches the study of probation from a doctrinal constitutional and international perspective, the case for which is built on comparative jurisprudence, institutional analysis, and comparative analysis. The paper posits that the system of probation in the country will necessitate synergistic reform across the spectrum of judicial education, standardized PSRs, the professionalization of probation officers, and the use of tech in judicial processes. This paper seeks to argue that probation, when viewed socially and philosophically through the lens of the constitution, is a constitutional right to not be jailed, and should be coupled with international legislation, the Tokyo Rules, which should call for reformative probation instead of punitive incarceration.
References
[1] Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes And Punishments (Henry Paolucci trans., Macmillan 1963).
[2] Cesare Lombroso, Criminal Man (Mary Gibson & Nicole Hahn Rafter eds., Duke Univ. Press 2006).
[3] Probation of Offenders Act, No. 20 of 1958, INDIA CODE.
[4] Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, INDIA CODE.
[5] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, No. 2 of 2016, INDIA CODE.
[6] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
[7] INDIA CONST. art. 39A.
[8] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248 (India).
[9] Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1088 (India).
[10] Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1972) 2 S.C.C. 890 (India).
[11] Phul Singh v. State of Haryana, (1980) 2 S.C.C. 368 (India).
[12] Smt. Devki v. State of Haryana, (1979) 3 S.C.C. 76 (India).
[13] Sukhnandan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1960 M.P. 14 (India).
[14] Rajeshwari Prasad v. Ram Babu Gupta, A.I.R. 1980 All. 152 (India).
[15] G.A. Res. 45/110, annex, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (Dec. 14, 1990) [Tokyo Rules].
[16] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
[17] K.D. Gaur, Textbook On Indian Penal Code (7th ed. 2013).
[18] B.B. Pande, Probation and Parole in India: Problems and Prospects, 25 J. INDIAN L. INST. 345 (1983).
[19] N.V. Paranjape, Criminology And Penology With Victimology (19th ed. 2017).
[20] K.I. Vibhute, Criminal Justice: A Human Rights Perspective Of The Criminal Justice Process In India (2004).
[21] Andrew Ashworth, Sentencing And Criminal Justice (6th ed. 2015).
[22] Peter Raynor & Gwynne Robinson, Rehabilitation, Crime And Justice (2009).
[23] Julian V. Roberts & Andrew von Hirsch, Statutory Sentencing Reform: The Purpose and Principles of Sentencing in Canada, 37 OSGOODE HALL L.J. 359 (1999).
[24] Dirk van Zyl Smit, Community Service Orders in South Africa, 32 BRIT. J. Criminology 460 (1992).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Management, Public Policy and Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
