Picture Credits - GettyImages
A criminal conviction rarely affects the offender; it flows over directly onto their dependents too. The most vulnerable of these dependents are children who are according to UNICEF in the tens of millions worldwide. They play no role in the crime committed by their guardians, yet, they bear a different form of punishment. They endure broken relationships, poverty, social stigma, and high chances of involvement with the criminal justice system. UNICEF classifies this group as invisible within global justice systems, urging systemic reforms to safeguard minors associated to convicts.
Though the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) has been ratified by 196 nations, a stark implementation gap remains. The criminal justice system is fundamentally adult oriented; prioritising punishment, and prisoner management while treating the child as a policy afterthought. This piece highlights the institutional ignorance which underscores a need to recognise and protect the children of convicted parents in special context to India.
The Scale of Hidden Harm
The problem has truly reached global proportions. Parental conviction is recongised formally among twelve Adverse Childhood (ACE), a framework which is built upon decades-long research on intergenerational impact analysis. A 2024, systematic review confirmed that children who have at least one incarcerated parent are at a higher risk of suffering from anxiety, depression, conduct problems, leaving schools prematurely, and involvement with the criminal justice system, a phenomenon known as “intergenerational criminality.”
In addition, a 2024 qualitative scoping review across 59 peer reviewed studies underscored a core need among affected children, to have common needs, which include continued parental contact, protection from social stigma and ostracization, participation in decisions affecting their own care, and enjoying a childhood without any arbitrary constraints.
Domestic data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) noted in the Prison Statistics India 2023, a stark picture for the crisis. According to this report, as of 31st December 2023, there were 5.3 lakh prisoners in India's prisons, while the sanctioned number was 4.4 lakh, thus making the occupancy rate 120.8%. The more worrying statistic, however, is the structural compositional of the prison population: 73.5% are undertrials who are presumed innocents. Identification of all the parental figures in this crowd is even harder since Indian Prison Reporting lacks systemic tracking of dependent children. Additionally, their offspring are not divided by a judicial pronouncement of the court, but by procedural delay from within the system. The undertrials consist of 22% Dalits, 13% Adivasis, and 16% Muslims; all percentages being greater than their national demographic representation. Therefore, the greatest burden of imprisonment on parents is shouldered by children who are present on the periphery of Indian society.
Women form only 4.1% of the Indian prison population but their incarceration disproportionately affects primary caregiving structures, owing to their critical involvement in the raising of a child. As of 2025, there were only 22 operational crèches in India's prisons among the total of 36 states and Union Territories. However, as evidenced in the report on India Prison Nursery 2024, while infants under three years can stay with their mothers in prison, such facilities are not well-established and thus effectively expose babies to the harshness of incarceration. Again highlighting the protection of children of incarcerated parents.
The Human-Rights Gap: A Child-Centric Reading of the UNCRC
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) puts forward a clear framework under Article 3(1), the “best interests of the child” should be given top priority during consideration in all state actions. Additionally, Article 9(3), guarantees personal relations and direct contact with a child's incarcerated parent, to the child unless it goes against his or her best interest. Article 9(4) requires the state to keep the child informed of where the missing parent can be found. In brief, the imprisonment of a parent is not merely a domestic problem; rather, it is an official state intervention that triggers binding human rights obligations imposing certain duties.
But in reality, the protection duties under the UNCRC are completely severed from the sentencing process and prison management. Judicial assessments of aggravating and mitigating circumstances apply to the offender, with no consideration given to the psychological development of any of their dependents. Rules governing visitation privileges by prisoners are only developed on the basis of security considerations and seldom on the best interests of the child. The end result is an accountability gap that persists through implementation of the UNCRC.
India and Scandinavia: Two Visions of Visitation
Now that ti has been identified that there exists a gap between systemic policy making in India and human rights consideration of incarcerated parents and their dependents. The difference between the policies of India and Scandinavia might provide a solution.
The rules governing Indian prison visiting continue to be shaped under an almost colonial framework. The Model Prison and Correctional Services Act of 2023 is meant to herald the transition from punitive governance to rehabilitation but only on paper. Such visits are generally short and happen through the physical barrier present in a common hall that is loud and provides no privacy whatsoever. There are no standard child-friendly waiting rooms or rules ensuring the company of child welfare officers accompanying minors during these visits. The 2025 Torture Global Index highlighted that although informal visits to prisons in India are possible in theory. When children come for visitation, it becomes an experience which could traumatize them rather than sustain the relationship which is expected to be nurtured by the State under the UNCRC mandate.
The disparity with the Scandinavian approach is daunting. The Norwegian prison system, which operates under the philosophy of normality, which means the prisoner is only sentenced to restriction of liberty and is deprived of no other rights. Therefore, the incarcerated individual has all the same rights as all others who live in Norway. Additionally, Norway has made family friendly visits to children an automatic procedure. For instance, in the maximum security Halden Prison, family rooms complete with play items, baby changing equipment, and outside playing spaces are put at disposal for child visitors. Inmates who complete a child-development education programme may access a chalet-style family apartment where they can receive their children for 24-hour visits, residing together without a physical barrier. Another consideration made is the Norwegian Correctional Service's public website designed specifically to help children understand and navigate visits to an imprisoned parent.
India can be inspired to incorporate three essential components which form the basis of the Scandinavian model:
1. The child being considered a person in his or her own right and possessing individual rights, not simply an extension of the imprisoned adult when framing rules for visitation and prisoner management;
2. Prison facilities which make children feel more comfortable to meet their parents, and to avoid direct interaction with the harsh and traumatic environment,
3. The involvement of child welfare experts within prisons, accompanying the child visitor.
Why the Gap Persists
This phenomenon is not a random occurrence. Firstly, children of incarcerated persons constitute a politically voiceless population, being neither old enough nor eligible for voting rights and independent litigation, and their experiences remaining undocumented. Secondly, Indian prisons fall within the purview of the State List of the Constitution's Schedule VII, leading to an uneven distribution of powers among various government entities causing enforcement gaps. Thirdly, the structure of data collection in relation to child victims remains flawed since the NCRB publication 'Prison Statistics India' fails to consider data regarding the number of children who have imprisoned parents or the condition in which such children find themselves.
Towards a Child-Rights-Integrated Justice System
Overcoming this weakness entails action at multiple levels. The first would be to insert provisions alongside Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to include a special duty where arrested persons have dependent children. These rights and subsequent duties would be very similar to the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights for Children of Incarcerated Parents, 2003 created by the San Francisco Partnership for Incarcerated Parents in 2003. This includes rights of children to be kept safe and informed when their parent is arrested, to be heard and considered in decisions concerning them and their parent, to receive proper care and support during their parent's incarceration, to speak with, see and touch their parent, to be free from judgment, blame and stigma, and to maintain a lifelong relationship with their parent. At the second level of institutional action, the NCRB would have to provide information disaggregated by dependent-child status; and guidelines for the Model Prison Act to incorporate child-friendly visiting infrastructure as a minimum rather than desirable provision
In any society, justice demands that punishment be personal. The child of the offender has done nothing wrong, but they are economically disadvantaged, educationally disadvantaged, mentally vulnerable, and institutionally deprived of the opportunity to break the cycle that imprisoned his parents. The language of the UNCRC is one through which redress can be articulated: the well-being of the child should come into account. Therefore, the act of imprisonment on the part of the State necessitates certain responsibilities towards children; and contact with his parent cannot be regarded as a reward but a right.
Views are personal.