International Standards for the Treatment of Women Prisoners: The Mandela and Bangkok Rules

Women make up a small fraction of the global prison population – estimated at between two and ten percent in most countries – yet their needs have historically been the last priority in prison design, policy, and law. Prisons worldwide have been built by men, for men. The architecture, the healthcare protocols, the security procedures – all have been shaped around a male default. This structural invisibility has real consequences: inadequate maternal care, exposure to gender-based violence, and the erasure of women’s specific health needs. Two landmark international frameworks were created to change this – the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Bangkok Rules. Together, they form the most important global standards for the humane treatment of prisoners, with the Bangkok Rules zeroing in on what it means to treat women prisoners with dignity. This post breaks down what these rules say, why they matter, and where India – a signatory to both – is still falling short.

The Nelson Mandela Rules: the baseline for all prisoners 🔗

The Nelson Mandela Rules, formally known as the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, were adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2015. They are a revised version of rules originally adopted in 1955, updated after more than five years of expert review to reflect advances in international human rights law and correctional science. The rules are named after Nelson Mandela – who spent 27 years imprisoned for his anti-apartheid activism – to honor his lifelong advocacy for human dignity.

The rules consist of 122 provisions covering every aspect of prison management. Their foundational principle is stated clearly in Rule 1: all prisoners must be treated with respect for their inherent dignity as human beings, and no prisoner shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under any circumstances. This is not aspirational – it is framed as an absolute obligation on states.

Key protections under the Mandela Rules 🔗

The Mandela Rules cover a wide range of prisoner rights. On healthcare, the rules make clear that health care for prisoners is a state responsibility, and that the relationship between health professionals and prisoners must be governed by the same ethical standards applicable to patients in the general community. Clinical decisions must be made by qualified health professionals – not prison staff.

On discipline, the rules introduced one of their most significant reforms: a clear definition and strict limitation on solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is defined as confinement for 22 or more hours a day without meaningful human contact. Prolonged solitary confinement – lasting more than 15 consecutive days – is explicitly prohibited. Indefinite solitary confinement is banned outright. The rules also prohibit corporal punishment, collective punishment, placement in permanently dark or lit cells, and reduction of food or water as disciplinary measures.

For women specifically, the Mandela Rules include provisions on prenatal and postnatal care in prison, and they state that restraints must never be used on women during labour, childbirth, or immediately after giving birth. They also address children who live in prison with their mothers, affirming that these children must never be treated as prisoners themselves.

However, the Mandela Rules apply universally – to all prisoners, regardless of gender. They were not designed to address the specific, layered vulnerabilities of women in the criminal justice system. That gap is exactly what the Bangkok Rules were created to fill.

The Bangkok Rules: the first international framework specifically for women prisoners 🔗

The Bangkok Rules – formally, the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offenders – were adopted by the UN General Assembly on 22 December 2010. They are the first international instrument ever created to address the gender-specific needs of women in the criminal justice system. The push for these rules came from Thailand, championed by Princess Bajrakitiyabha, who identified the deep systemic gap in how incarcerated women were treated in systems designed almost entirely around men.

The Bangkok Rules do not replace the Mandela Rules. They supplement them. The 70 rules provide guidance to policymakers, legislators, sentencing authorities, and prison staff – both to reduce the imprisonment of women and to ensure their specific needs are met when imprisonment does occur.

Healthcare and reproductive rights 🔗

One of the most detailed sections of the Bangkok Rules concerns healthcare. Women prisoners must receive gender-sensitive health services that go far beyond what the general prison system typically offers. This includes reproductive healthcare, mental health support, and screening for histories of abuse – because female offenders are disproportionately likely to have previously experienced domestic or sexual abuse, and this history must inform how they are assessed and treated.

For pregnant women and new mothers, the rules are specific: pregnant and breastfeeding women must receive healthcare and dietary guidance from qualified practitioners, and must be provided adequate food, a healthy environment, and regular exercise opportunities – free of charge. Women must not be discouraged from breastfeeding unless there is a specific medical reason. The medical and nutritional needs of women who have given birth but whose babies are not with them in prison must also be addressed in their care plans.

When children stay with their mothers in prison, the rules require that these children receive ongoing health care and developmental monitoring, and that their environment be as close as possible to a normal childhood setting. Decisions about separating a child from an incarcerated mother must be based on the best interests of the child – not administrative convenience.

Protection from gender-based violence 🔗

The Bangkok Rules directly confront the reality of custodial violence against women. Throughout the criminal justice process, women face risks of abuse, violence, and humiliation – from police, prison officers, and fellow prisoners. For many women, custody can mean ill-treatment, invasive body searches, sexual coercion, and threats of rape. The rules require that women be searched only by female staff, that any gender-based violence be subject to investigation and accountability, and that women have access to confidential reporting mechanisms they can actually trust.

The rules also acknowledge that women’s pathways into crime are fundamentally different from men’s – often shaped by poverty, histories of victimization, and dependent caregiving roles. This is why the Bangkok Rules place significant emphasis on non-custodial alternatives to imprisonment, particularly for non-violent offenders and primary caregivers. Community service, probation, and rehabilitation programs are held up as preferable to incarceration wherever possible.

Staff training and gender-sensitive management 🔗

The Bangkok Rules require that all staff working with women prisoners receive training in gender-sensitive approaches to prison management. This covers everything from how searches are conducted to how mental health issues rooted in trauma are identified and addressed. The Mandela Rules are supplemented by the Bangkok Rules on women prisoners, meaning that prison systems must apply both frameworks together – not treat them as optional extras.

India’s compliance and the gaps that remain 🔗

India is a signatory to the international norms underpinning both the Mandela and Bangkok Rules. The country has taken some legislative steps in the right direction. The Model Prison Manual of 2016 incorporated provisions aligned with international standards, and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act of 2023 introduced a dedicated chapter on women prisoners – allowing children up to age six to remain with their incarcerated mothers, and mandating special facilities for women and transgender prisoners. The 2023 Act also introduced bans on caste-based discrimination in prison work assignments and manual scavenging, representing a meaningful step toward aligning with constitutional values of equality and dignity.

But there is a persistent and well-documented gap between what the law says and what actually happens inside Indian prisons.

Overcrowding and inadequate infrastructure 🔗

A report by India’s Ministry of Women and Child Development found that prison systems in India are primarily designed for men and are not adequately equipped to address the needs of women. Overcrowding is a foundational problem – the national average prison occupancy has exceeded 100%, and women’s sections within mixed-gender prisons are often the most cramped and under-resourced. Basic sanitation, menstrual hygiene products, and separate sleeping arrangements are not consistently available across states.

Healthcare failures 🔗

Despite the provisions of the Bangkok Rules, women prisoners in India often lack access to basic healthcare services, including reproductive and maternal care. Gaps are especially severe in rural or remote prison locations, leading to complications in pregnancy, untreated menstrual disorders, and preventable disease. The Model Prison Manual recommends that every woman prisoner be examined by a female medical officer – but this is far from consistently implemented across states.

Gender-based violence inside prisons 🔗

Reports of abuse by prison staff and fellow inmates remain a serious concern. Mechanisms for reporting such abuse exist on paper but are often under-utilized due to a lack of trust in authorities or fear of retaliation. The absence of robust, independent oversight means that violations often go uninvestigated and unpunished.

The implementation problem 🔗

A core structural issue is that prisons in India fall under the jurisdiction of state governments, under Entry 4 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. This means the central government can create model manuals and reform legislation, but cannot compel states to adopt them. The Model Prisons Act of 2023, like its predecessors, faces the enormous challenge of actual adoption and implementation by state governments – a pattern that has undermined prison reform in India for decades. The 1959 Model Prison Manual, for instance, was acknowledged at an inter-state conference in 1983 but was never implemented in most states.

Staff training is another critical gap. Even where gender-sensitive policies exist, prison staff often lack training in gender-sensitive approaches to prison management, and women’s issues are frequently deprioritized in overall prison administration. Without trained personnel who understand the specific vulnerabilities of women prisoners, even well-written rules remain ineffective.

Alternatives to incarceration: an underused tool 🔗

The Bangkok Rules strongly encourage non-custodial alternatives for women offenders – particularly those who are primary caregivers or have committed non-violent offences. India has made limited progress here. Probation, community service, and open prisons exist as legal options but are rarely used in a systematic, gender-responsive way. Women who are sole caregivers for young children or elderly relatives continue to be imprisoned even for minor offences, with devastating consequences for their families.

What needs to change 🔗

The gap between India’s international commitments and ground reality is not simply a resource problem – it is a problem of political prioritization. For India to develop a genuinely gender-responsive prison system, reforms must include comprehensive central legislation with legally binding minimum standards, gender-responsive budgeting for women’s prisons, systematic data collection disaggregated by gender, and greater use of non-custodial alternatives for non-violent offenders with dependent children. Independent oversight bodies with real investigative authority are also essential to hold prison administrations accountable.

The Nelson Mandela Rules set the floor – the absolute minimum of human dignity that every prisoner deserves. The Bangkok Rules build on that floor specifically for women, acknowledging that equal treatment does not always mean identical treatment. A woman who is pregnant, a nursing mother, or a survivor of domestic violence has needs that a one-size-fits-all prison system simply cannot meet. Recognizing that difference is not a privilege – it is the baseline of a rights-respecting justice system.

What do you think? Should India make non-custodial alternatives to imprisonment legally mandatory for women who are primary caregivers of young children? And given that prisons fall under state jurisdiction, how can the central government ensure meaningful, enforceable compliance with international standards across all states?

References

1. https://www.penalreform.org/issues/women/bangkok-rules/
2. https://www.un.org/en/events/mandeladay/mandela_rules.shtml
3. https://fra.europa.eu/en/law-reference/un-general-assembly-resolution-70175-2015-united-nations-standard-minimum-rules-0
4. https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/nelson-mandela-rules-protecting-rights-persons-deprived-liberty
5. https://www.solitaryconfinement.org/un-nelson-mandela-rules
6. https://childrenofprisoners.eu/2015-un-standard-minimum-rules-for-the-treatment-of-prisoners-the-nelson-mandela-rules/
7. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/united-nations-rules-treatment-women-prisoners-and-non-custodial
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangkok_Rules
9. https://childrenofprisoners.eu/2010-un-rules-for-the-treatment-of-women-prisoners-and-non-custodial-measures-for-women-offenders-the-bangkok-rules/
10. https://www.penalreform.org/issues/prison-conditions/standard-minimum-rules/
11. https://www.sanskritiias.com/current-affairs/prison-reforms-in-india-major-amendments-provisions-and-need
12. https://ruralindiaonline.org/en/library/resource/women-in-prisons-india/
13. https://thelaw.institute/criminal-justice-processes/legal-reforms-women-prisoners-india/
14. https://www.cnlu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Women-Prisoners-And-Their-Rights-Special-Need-To-Concern-by-Prof.-Rajaram-Garud-Dr.-Anjali-Bondar.pdf