Uttarakhand steps up vigilance in jails to curb radicalisation
Inmates found promoting extremist ideologies will be segregated and placed under strict surveillance. The move comes as the state's Home Department begins implementing central government directives aimed at tackling the rising influence of radical elements in correctional facilities.
Confirming the development, Home Secretary Shailesh Bagoli said, 'We have received guidelines from the Central Government in this regard. Based on these, necessary instructions are being dispatched to all jails for immediate action.'
Uttarakhand has 11 jails housing around 6,300 inmates, including 2,400 convicts and the rest undertrials. Jail officials have observed a surge in extremist ideologies among inmates in recent times, which they believe poses a serious threat.
Authorities say radicalization often manifests through feelings of isolation, violent tendencies, and anti-social behaviour. Concerns have been raised about the possibility of inmates conspiring to harm staff, fellow prisoners, or coordinating activities from inside jail. Officials also worry that violent inmates may influence vulnerable individuals.
Authorities say radicalization often manifests as isolation, violent tendencies, and anti-social behaviour. Concerns have been raised about the possibility of inmates conspiring to harm staff, fellow prisoners, or coordinating activities from inside jail. Officials also worry that violent inmates may influence vulnerable individuals.
To tackle the issue, the Centre has recommended rehabilitation programmes involving counselling, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), and participation from scholars and social workers. Other recommendations include specialized training for prison staff, improved family-inmate communication, heightened security, and enhanced monitoring, data management of prisoners and classified monitoring of inmates.
Uttarakhand's DIG (Jails) Dadhi Ram Maurya told TNIE, 'Given that jails are inherently crowded environments, instructions have been received to closely monitor inmates who are likely to incite against the system.' He added that strict surveillance is also maintained over the visitors and family members of such inmates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
12 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
VS was modest and commanded respect across parties, recalls former Kerala governor Sathasivam
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: A sincere, upright and hard working politician who commanded respect from all cutting across party lines. This is how former Kerala governor P Sathasivam remembers V S Achuthanandan. What set him apart was his modest, unassuming manners, said Sathasivam, who in 2016 famously asked the Achuthanandan-led Opposition members to either behave or leave the assembly when they tried to disrupt his speech during a protest demanding the resignation of then CM Oommen Chandy, and others. 'I knew him well during my tenure in Kerala. I have great respect for him,' he told TNIE over the phone. On the stormy session, he said: 'I told the Opposition it was my Constitutional duty to deliver the government's policy address. They refused to oblige,' he said. Sathasivam even appealed to Achuthanandan and Kodiyeri Balakrishnan to let him to continue. When the Opposition neglected his pleas, he said: 'I am aware this protest is not against you sit quiet or leave the house.' The Opposition walked out. Achuthanandan later said the Opposition had no issue with the governor. 'We respectfully asked him to avoid policy address. Also, we respectfully communicate our protest on today's development,' he said.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Tiruchy church discrimination row: Bishop skips car procession
Speaking to TNIE, Collector V Saravanan said, 'We have constituted a peace committee to address the issue. The RDO will conduct an inquiry. The existing laws are clear.' However, when revenue officials tried to hold a mediation meeting locally, Dalit representatives insisted that either the Bishop or a senior diocesan official must be present. 'This is not simply Dalits versus non-Dalits issue. The church administration is part of the discrimination,' said J Doss Prakash, a Dalit Christian parishioner. 'The festival committee is entirely controlled by non-Dalits. We are denied basic rights like paying subscription or take part in the planning. Even after decades, not even a small chariot enters our streets.' he added. Adding weight to the protest, Bishop Jeevanandam Amalanathan boycotted the procession, citing the ongoing caste tensions and the diocese's alleged inability to resolve the matter. A peace meeting involving stakeholders is expected to be arranged later this week.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Himachal tribal woman marries 2 brothers: What the law says on polyandry
The Trans-Giri region in Himachal Pradesh witnessed a centuries-old customary practice recently, when a woman, Sunita Chauhan, married two brothers, Pradeep and Kapil Negi. This polyandrous tradition is locally known as 'Jodidaran'.The Hatti tribe has seen five such marriages in the past six years. Notably, the community was granted the status of Scheduled Tribes (STs) by the Centre in 2022. Their practice of polyandry has roots in the desire to preserve undivided family land, particularly agricultural land. According to supporters of the tradition, it has also served as a means to reinforce familial bonds between brothers and provided more security to women. Is polyandry legal in India? Polyandry and polygamy are outlawed by the Special Marriages Act, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and criminalised under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. While religious personal laws specifically govern marriage, the Constitution also recognises the relevance of prevailing customary laws among STs. The Constitution, under Article 342, recognises STs and accords them a distinct legal status. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, governs marriage applicable to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. Section 2(2) of the Act includes a carve-out stating that its provisions do not apply to STs 'unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.' In the absence of such a notification, the Hattis continue to be governed by laws laid down under their customs, which are undocumented and uncodified. The Act defines 'custom' under Section 3 as a rule that has been 'observed for a long time, has obtained the force of law.' But for a customary law to be valid, it must also hold the standard of certainty, reasonableness, and consistency with public policy. When challenged, these laws do not automatically gain legal recognition; courts have to be provided with proper evidence that such customary laws prevail. Much debate surrounds the applicability of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to such situations. In 2024, the Uttarakhand government, by enacting UCC, provided a legal framework for inheritance, marriage, divorce, and adoption. The UCC mandates the registration of marriage, establishes equal rights of spouses across religions and communities and prohibits polygamy. However, it does not apply to STs, following a Constitutional pattern of upholding their customary practices. Section 2 of the Uniform Civil Code Rules, Uttarakhand, 2025 states that 'these rules shall not be applicable to the members of any Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 read with Article 342 of the Constitution of India and the persons and group of persons whose customary rights are protected under Part XXI of the Constitution of India.' What has the court said on the issue? Increasingly, courts have read customary laws prevalent among STs with the rights to equality, dignity and life and liberty as enshrined under the Constitution. Any law that is in conflict with fundamental rights is struck down as unconstitutional. For example, the Supreme Court declared the practice of triple talaq as customary and therefore unconstitutional under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. It was deemed arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality, dignity and the right to life. Similarly, in 2018, the SC ruled that the customary practice of prohibiting women of menstruating age from entering the Sabrimala temple in Kerala was unconstitutional. The apex court held that this restriction violated the fundamental rights of women, including the right to equality and the freedom of religion under Articles 14,15 and 21 of the Constitution. On July 17, the SC in Ram Charan & Ors. Versus Sukhram & Ors, a case related to succession rights for tribal women, reaffirmed this principle. It held that when a custom is silent on inheritance, there is no restriction in law that women should be prevented from inheriting ancestral property. The apex court observed that 'customs too, like the law, cannot remain stuck in time and others cannot be allowed to take refuge in customs or hide behind them to deprive others of their right.' The ruling affirmed that excluding female heirs solely based on customary male preferences violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
