2026 INSC 713 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES

AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

For clarity of exposition and to facilitate structured

consideration of the issues arising in the present

matter, this judgment has been organised under the

following heads: -

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 3

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND MATERIAL PLACED

BEFORE THIS COURT .................................................... 5

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT ................. 10

A. NALSA ................................................................... 11

2

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

B. STATE OF BIHAR ........................................................ 16

C.STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ..................................... 17

IV. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ............................... 18

V. DIRECTIONS .......................................................... 28

SCHEDULE A ............................................................... 36

1. Heard.

2. The manner in which a constitutional

democracy treats those who find themselves in

positions of heightened vulnerability within its

institutional framework is often the clearest reflection

of its commitment to the rule of law and human

dignity. Prisons, though instruments of lawful

confinement, are not spaces where constitutional

values are suspended. The guarantees of dignity,

fairness and humane treatment continue to operate

with full force even behind prison walls, where the

power of the State is exercised in its most intrusive

form and the vulnerability of individuals is at its

highest.

3

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

3. The instant writ petition has been instituted by

National Legal Services Authority

1, under Article 32

of the Constitution of India raising grave and

systemic concerns regarding the continued

incarceration of convicted prisoners who are of

advanced age (above 70 years) or are terminally ill.

The petition highlights that despite their severely

deteriorating health conditions and the manifest

inadequacy of medical and caregiving facilities within

prisons, such prisoners continue to remain confined,

resulting in prolonged physical suffering and erosion

of human dignity. It is contended that this state of

affairs amounts to a direct infringement of

fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and

21 of the Constitution of India.

4. NALSA, in furtherance of its statutory mandate

under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, to lay

down policies and frame mechanisms for making

legal services easily accessible to the weaker sections

of society, conducted a nationwide Special

Campaign for Old Prisoners & Terminally Ill

1

Hereinafter, being referred to as “NALSA”.

4

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

Prisoners between 10

th December, 2024 and 10

th

March, 2025. Through this structured and

comprehensive exercise, NALSA identified a distinct

class of prisoners whose continued incarceration,

despite advanced age or terminal illness, warrants

immediate constitutional scrutiny, as their condition

renders them particularly vulnerable to neglect,

suffering and deprivation of dignity within the prison

system. In the backdrop of the aforesaid exercise, and

in discharge of its constitutional and statutory

responsibilities, NALSA has, by way of the present

writ petition, inter alia, sought directions for grant of

bail and release of such identified prisoners, subject

to the satisfaction of the respective learned trial

Courts, so as to ensure that punishment does not

degenerate into cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment and that the right to live with dignity is

preserved even within the prison system. For the sake

of ready reference, the reliefs sought in the writ

petition are reproduced hereinbelow: -

“a. To grant bail to persons identified by the

Petitioner under the Special Campaign for Old

Prisoners & Terminally Ill Prisoners subject to the

satisfaction of the respective Ld. Trial Courts;

And/or

5

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

b. Pass any other order or relief in favour of the

Petitioner in the interest of Justice, equity, and good

conscience.”

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND MATERIAL

PLACED BEFORE THIS COURT

5. The present proceedings bring to the fore a

distinct yet interlinked facet of the broader

constitutional concern relating to humane conditions

of incarceration, namely, the continued confinement

of elderly and terminally ill prisoners within the

prison system. The factual foundation of this issue is

grounded in empirical data placed on record by

NALSA, drawing substantially from official statistics

and structured field-level campaigns/interventions.

6. According to the Prison Statistics India Report,

2022 published by the National Crime Records

Bureau (NCRB), as on 31

st December, 2022, there

were a total of 1,33,415 convicted prisoners in India.

Out of this population, 27,690 convicts, constituting

approximately 20.8%, were aged 50 years and above.

While the report does not specifically disaggregate

data for convicts beyond the age of 70 years, it is

evident that a non-trivial proportion of the prison

population comprises elderly individuals, many of

6

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

whom are likely to be afflicted with age-related

morbidities and chronic medical conditions.

7. The NCRB data further reveals that a significant

number of custodial deaths are attributable to

illnesses, with medical causes emerging as one of the

predominant factors leading to mortality within

prisons. Aging-related complications also account for

a substantial portion of such fatalities. These figures

underscore the heightened vulnerability of elderly

and terminally ill prisoners, particularly in an

institutional setting that is structurally ill-equipped

to provide continuous, specialized and dignified

healthcare.

8. It is within this backdrop that the constitutional

dimensions of incarceration assume critical

importance. The right to life and dignity under Article

21 of the Constitution of India is not placed under

cessation upon conviction. India’s international

obligations under instruments such as the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

1966 reinforce the prohibition against cruel,

inhuman or degrading tre atment of persons in

custody. The evolving standards of penology thus

7

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

demand that punishment, even when lawfully

imposed, must not transgress the boundaries of

human dignity.

9. NALSA has brought to the notice of this Court

that the executive branch has also acknowledged the

constitutional imperative of addressing the plight of

disabled, terminally ill and old aged prisoners.

Judicial cognizance of this issue was first taken by

the High Court of Delhi in Suo Motu Writ Petition

(Criminal) No. 201 of 2009 , where an Hon’ble

Judge, after a prison visit, expressed grave concern

over the continued incarceration of prisoners who

had no realistic chance of recovery. Pursuant thereto,

the Government of India issued an Advisory dated

13

th August, 2010 on the policy for treatment of

terminally ill prisoners/inmates (TIPs),

recommending, inter alia, that State Governments

and Union Territories consider the release of such

prisoners as part of general amnesty measures.

10. It is submitted that notwithstanding the

existence of the aforesaid policy framework,

instances continue to surface that reflect systemic

inertia. By way of illustration, in a recent case, a 93-

year-old woman prisoner lodged in a prison in

8

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

Karnataka, whose condition necessitated

intervention of the District Legal Services Authority,

which moved this Court seeking her release . In

another case, the High Court Legal Services

Committee placed before the Calcutta High Court the

matter of a terminally ill undertrial prisoner,

resulting in the grant of bail. These cases are

symptomatic of a larger structural problem rather

than isolated aberrations.

11. It is this backdrop that, in furtherance of its

statutory mandate under the Legal Services

Authorities Act, 1987, and with a view to address this

systemic gap, NALSA initiated a Special Campaign

for Old Prisoners & Terminally Ill Prisoners from

10

th December, 2024 to 10

th March, 2025. The said

campaign represents the first nationwide, structured

effort aimed specifically at identifying elderly and

terminally ill prisoners and facilitating appropriate

legal and administrative interventions.

12. Under this initiative, District Units were

constituted across States and Union Territories,

tasked with visiting prisons, scrutinizing medical

records, interacting with inmates, and compiling

verified data. A standardized methodology was

9

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

adopted to ensure uniformity and reliability of

identification.

13. Pursuant to the aforesaid exercise, information

collated from various State Legal Services Authorities

disclosed that a total of 5,393 prisoners were

identified as falling within the broad category of

elderly and/or terminally ill inmates. Out of this

cohort, NALSA identified 11 convicts who were

terminally ill and 84 convicts who were above the age

of 70 years, spread across 17 States

2 and 1 Union

Territory

3 (who are party-respondents to the present

writ petition), all of whom stand convicted by the

respective High Courts but have not yet approached

this Court by way of appeal or special leave petition.

14. The data placed on record includes detailed

particulars, which collectively demonstrate that a

segment of the prison population is presently

undergoing incarceration in conditions that raise

serious constitutional and humane concerns. These

materials, annexed to the writ petition, form the

empirical substratum of the present proceedings and

2

States of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Himachal

Pradesh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab,

Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal

and Odisha.

3

National Capital Territory of Delhi.

10

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

exhort this Court to examine whether the continued

confinement of such prisoners serves any legitimate

penological purpose, or whether it amounts to

punitive suffering divorced from constitutional

morality.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT

15. Upon consideration of the issues raised in the

present writ petition, this Court issued notice to the

respondents on 5

th May, 2025 and called upon the

Union of India and all States and Union Territories

who were arraigned as party-respondents, to file their

respective responses. Despite due service and

sufficient opportunity, only the States of Bihar and

Himachal Pradesh have filed their counter affidavits.

The remaining respondents have failed to place any

response on record, notwithstanding the

constitutional significance of the issues involved.

16. Thereafter, the matter was heard at length on

18

th July, 2025. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, learned

counsel appearing for NALSA and learned counsels

appearing for the responding States were heard on

the merits of the case. Learned counsel for the

11

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

parties were permitted to furnish written

submissions.

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. NALSA

17. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, learned counsel

appearing for NALSA, submitted that NALSA has the

requisite locus standi to maintain the present writ

petition, inasmuch as this Court has consistently

relaxed the traditional rules of ‘locus standi’ and

‘person aggrieved’ in matters concerning enforcement

of fundamental rights of vulnerable and marginalized

sections of society. It was urged that being a statutory

body constituted under the Legal Services Authorities

Act, 1987, NALSA has no private or personal interest

in the outcome of the present proceedings and is

acting purely in discharge of its public duty. Reliance

was placed on Section 4(d) of the said Act, which

obligates NALSA to undertake social justice litigation

whenever issues of grave systemic injustice came to

fore. Learned counsel further submitted that this

Court has previously recognised and affirmed the

standing of NALSA to espouse collective

constitutional rights, including in National Legal

12

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

Services Authority v. Union of India & Ors.

4,

where NALSA was permitted to represent the rights

of the transgender community.

18. Learned counsel submitted that the continued

incarceration of terminally ill and elderly prisoners

constitutes a direct infringement of their

fundamental rights under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India, as the procedure which results

in prolonged detention in conditions of severe

physical suffering cannot be regarded as fair, just or

reasonable. Reliance was placed on the judgment of

this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

5, to

contend that any deprivation of life or personal liberty

must conform to substantive due process. It was

further submitted that in Sunil Batra v. Delhi

Administration

6, this Court has read into Article 21

the right against cruel, inhuman and degrading

punishment, and has expressly recognised the right

of prisoners to health, humane environment and

proper medical treatment. According to learned

counsel, incarceration of persons suffering from

4

(2014) 5 SCC 348

5

(1978) 1 SCC 248.

6

(1978) 4 SCC 494.

13

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

terminal illness or those of advanced age in

overcrowded and medically ill-equipped prisons

subjects them to needless suffering, thereby

rendering such detention constitutionally

impermissible.

19. It was submitted on behalf of NALSA that, in

addition to filing the present writ petition, NALSA has

also undertaken institutional reforms including the

revising of its Standard Operating Procedure

7 for

Under Trial Review Committees

8 so as to

systematically identify and address cases of

terminally ill and elderly prisoners. The revised SOP

now expressly includes both these categories within

the scope of UTRC scrutiny, and mandates

consideration of undertrial prisoners who are sick or

infirm, including those who are terminally ill and

require specialized medical treatment, as well as

those who are aged 70 years and above, for humane

and time-bound consideration. It was urged that this

mechanism enables proactive, structured and time-

bound evaluation of such vulnerable prisoners for

release on bail, parole or remission, thereby

7

For short, “SOP”.

8

For short, “UTRCs”.

14

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

strengthening the institutional framework for

protecting their dignity and right to health within the

criminal justice system.

20. It was further urged that the concept of

premature or compassionate release of terminally ill

and elderly prisoners has gained wide acceptance in

international practices. It was submitted that many

nations have adopted humane policies recognizing

that continued incarceration of such prisoners serves

no legitimate penological purpose. Learned counsel

submitted that this global trend finds its normative

foundation in the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, 1948, and that India, being a signatory to

international human rights covenants and guided by

the constitutional mandate under Article 51(c) to

foster respect for international law, ought to give due

recognition to such standards within its domestic

legal framework.

21. Learned counsel further submitted that, for the

purposes of the present proceedings, this Court may

consider adopting a principled and uniform definition

of “terminal illness” as recognised in statutory and

international frameworks, so as to ensure

consistency and objectivity in the identification of

15

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

eligible prisoners. In this regard, reference was made

to the Medical Treatment of Terminally -Ill

Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical

Practitioners) Bill, 2016, which defined “terminal

illness” as a condition causing extreme pain and

suffering and which, according to reasonable medical

opinion, will inevitably result in death, or a persistent

and irreversible vegetative state under which no

meaningful existence is possible. Reliance was also

placed on the UNODC

9

Handbook on Prisoners with

Special Needs (2009), which defines “terminal

illness” as a situation where there is no reasonable

medical possibility that the patient’s condition will

not continue to degenerate and result in death. It was

submitted that incorporation of such a definition

would enable a fair, objective and humane

application of any relief granted by this Court.

22. Learned counsel lastly submitted that this

Court is fully empowered to mould appropriate relief

in the present case in exercise of its jurisdiction

under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the

Constitution of India, particularly having regard to

9

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

16

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

the evolving constitutional understanding of dignity,

proportionality and humane treatment in

punishment. It was contended that the failure of

State authorities to devise and implement effective

mechanisms for the protection and early release of

terminally ill and elderly prisoners constitutes a

continuing violation of Article 21 of the Constitution

of India, thereby warranting judicial intervention and

constitutional redress.

B. State of Bihar

23. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

State of Bihar submitted that during the Special

Campaign conducted by NALSA, a total of 13

prisoners were identified in the State, out of which 2

prisoners were suffering from terminal illness and 11

prisoners were above the age of 70 years. It was

further submitted that in sever al cases, the

procedure for premature release has either been

initiated or placed before the competent authorities,

while in some cases appeals are pending before the

High Court or this Court or same are in the process

of being filed. In a few (three) instances, prisoners

have already been released pursuant to orders of the

17

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

State Sentence Remission Board. The State placed on

record detailed prison -wise and case -wise

information regarding the status of appeals, health

conditions and steps taken for premature release,

and submitted that the objective of the campaign is

being facilitated through coordination with legal

services institutions, with a view to ensuring that

eligible elderly and terminally ill prisoners receive

appropriate legal and administrative consideration in

accordance with law.

C. State of Himachal Pradesh

24. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

State of Himachal Pradesh submitted that as on 15

th

May, 2025, there are no terminally ill prisoners

lodged in the jails of the State, though a total of 17

elderly prisoners, comprising 5 undertrial prisoners

and 12 convicts, are presently incarcerated. It was

further stated that one inmate, namely Mastan

Singh, lodged in District and Open-Air Jail, Bilaspur,

is suffering from renal failure and is undergoing

dialysis two to three times a week, in addition to

receiving treatment from Postgraduate Institute of

Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and

18

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur. The

State expressed that it has no objection if this Court

considers grant of bail to prisoners identified by

NALSA under the Special Campaign for Old

Prisoners & Terminally Ill Prisoners, subject to

the satisfaction of the respective learned trial Courts

and in accordance with law.

V. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

25. We have heard and considered the submissions

advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have

thoroughly examined the material available on

record.

26. At the outset, this Court considers it necessary

to emphasise that the factual matrix placed before it

does not merely warrant consideration of individual

cases in isolation but raises issues of a systemic and

institutional character. The present proceedings

compel this Court to examine whether the existing

legal frameworks, remission policies and executive

advisories governing incarceration are being

meaningfully implemented in practice, and whether

there exists a need for a principled and uniform

mechanism to ensure that advanced age and

19

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

terminal illness are recognised not as exceptional

contingencies, but as constitutionally relevant

considerations in the administration of criminal

justice.

27. It is relevant to note that t he present

proceedings arise in the backdrop of a nationwide

Special Campaign for Old Prisoners and

Terminally Ill Prisoners initiated by NALSA

between 10

th December, 2024 and 10

th March, 2025.

The campaign was conceived as a structured and

time-bound intervention to identify prisoners who

were either terminally ill or of advanced age, and to

facilitate appropriate legal and administrative

measures for their release and humane treatment.

For this purpose, NALSA constituted a three -tier

institutional mechanism comprising a National Unit,

State Units and District Units, with the District Units

tasked with visiting every prison within their

respective jurisdictions and undertaking physical

verification of such prisoners.

28. In order to ensure objectivity and medical

consistency, the NALSA adopted the definition of

“terminal illness” contained in the UNODC

Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs (2009),

20

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

which describes it as “a situation where there is no

reasonable medical possibility that the patient’s

condition will not continue to degenerate and result in

death.” The campaign was guided by clearly

articulated objectives, namely, identification and

release of elderly and terminally ill prisoners,

ensuring humane treatment for those who could not

be released, and facilitating their reintegration into

society wherever possible. As a result of this exercise,

data collated from the State Legal Services

Authorities revealed that a total of 5,393 prisoners

were identified, including 1,886 undertrial prisoners

and 3,507 convicts falling within these vulnerable

categories.

29. In order to operationalize the objectives of the

campaign, NALSA further revised its SOP for UTRCs,

thereby institutionalizing the process of identification

and consideration of elderly and terminally ill

prisoners. The revised SOP now expressly mandates

UTRCs to examine the cases of undertrial prisoners

who are sick or infirm, including those who are

terminally ill and require specialized medical

treatment, as well as those who are aged 70 years and

above. This institutional reform ensures that

21

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

vulnerable prisoners are proactively identified and

that their cases are placed before competent

authorities/committees for consideration of bail,

parole or remission, thereby embedding humane

principles within the routine functioning of the

criminal justice system.

30. Significantly, the material placed before this

Court also reveals that the issue of terminally ill

prisoners is not a novel concern. As early as in 2010,

pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court

of Delhi in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No.

201 of 2009, the Government of India issued a

comprehensive advisory to all States and Union

Territories laying down a policy framework for the

treatment of terminally ill prisoners. The Advisory

emphasized a duty upon the State Governments/UT

Administrations to devise appropriate policies for

identification of terminally ill prisoners, ensure

specialized and continuous medical care, frame clear

criteria for compassionate release, and facilitate

interaction with family members. It categorically

underscored that the State must resort to all possible

legal measures to enable terminally ill prisoners to

live the remaining part of their lives with dignity, in

22

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

peace and in the close vicinity of their family

members and close friends.

31. The Advisory further called for constitution of

District-level and State-level Medical Boards to certify

cases of terminal illness within prescribed timelines,

and exhorted State Governments and Union Territory

Administrations to explore all available legal avenues,

including general amnesty and petitions for clemency

under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of

India. The existence of such a detailed and

compassionate policy framework for over a decade

reflects a clear and conscious executive

acknowledgment that continued incarceration of

terminally ill prisoners is not merely an

administrative issue, but one that squarely engages

the core constitutional values of dignity,

proportionality and humane treatment embedded

within Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

32. Despite the existence of this policy framework

for over a decade, the factual material placed before

this Court indicates that its implementation across

States and Union Territories has been uneven and

largely dependent on individual initiatives rather

than systemic compliance. The persistence of large

23

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

numbers of terminally ill and elderly prisoners within

overcrowded prisons reflects a disconnect between

normative policy commitments and ground -level

execution. This institutional gap directly implicates

the State’s constitutional obligations under Article

21, which mandates not merely lawful detention, but

detention consistent with dignity, fairness and

humane treatment.

33. The constitutional jurisprudence of this Court

consistently recognized that age and medical

condition are relevant and often decisive

considerations in matters of bail and premature

release. In Dr. P. Varavara Rao v. National

Investigation Agency

10, permanent bail was

granted on medical grounds to an elderly prisoner

aged 82 years. In Rasik Chandra Mondal v. State

of West Bengal

11, interim release was directed for a

centenarian convict, acknowledging the challenges

posed by advanced age. These decisions affirm that

incarceration, when it results in avoidable physical

suffering and denial of medical care, ceases to be a

lawful restriction and becomes constitutionally

10

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1004.

11

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 313 of 2020.

24

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

impermissible. They underscore a settled

constitutional principle: that punishment must not

become retributive suffering divorced from

proportionality, humanity and purpose.

34. Furthermore, the Law Commission of India, in

its 268

th Report, reinforced this constitutional

position by advocating a liberal and humane

approach to bail, particularly for prisoners of

advanced age or suffering from serious illness. The

Report expressly recommends mandatory bail where

the accused is suffering from a life-threatening

condition and adequate medical care is unavailable

in custody, recognizing that continued detention in

such circumstances only compounds suffering and

serves no legitimate penological purpose. These

recommendations reflect an evolving constitutional

understanding of bail not merely as a procedural

discretion, but as a substantiv e safeguard

intrinsically linked to the right to live with dignity

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

35. At this stage, it would be apposite to note that

international legal standards lend substantial

normative force to the position that continued

incarceration of elderly and terminally ill prisoners is

25

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

incompatible with principles of human dignity.

Instruments such as the UNODC Handbook on

Prisoners with Special Needs, the United Nations

Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of

Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules), and the Council of

Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) Report

uniformly recognize that prison systems are

structurally ill-equipped to provide adequate end-of-

life or palliative care, and that compassionate or early

release mechanisms are essential to safeguard the

inherent dignity of such prisoners. Comparative state

practice across jurisdictions further demonstrates

that advanced age and terminal illness are widely

treated as legitimate grounds for conditional or early

release, subject to considerations of public safety and

proportionality. In light of Article 51(c) of the

Constitution of India, which enjoins the State to

foster respect for international law, these standards

assume persuasive constitutional relevance and

serve as important normative benchmarks for the

evolution of humane penological practices within the

Indian legal system.

36. Viewed cumulatively, the material placed before

this Court reveals not merely isolated humanitarian

26

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

claims, but a deeper and systemic convergence of

constitutional principles, executive policy, judicial

precedents and international norms. The continued

incarceration of elderly and terminally ill prisoners,

in the absence of structured , transparent and

consistent release mechanisms, or palliative care

within the institutional framework raises

fundamental questions about proportionality, dignity

and the moral legitimacy of punishment itself. The

present case thus calls for a systemic recalibration of

criminal justice system, wherein vulnerability is not

treated as an afterthought, but as a constitutionally

significant determinant for humane treatment of

prisoners.

37. At this juncture, it becomes necessary for this

Court to examine the constitutional distribution of

powers in relation to prisons and persons detained

therein. Under the Schedule VII List II of the

Constitution, the subject of “prisons and persons

detained therein” falls exclusively within the

legislative domain of the States, and the primary

responsibility for framing, adopting and effectively

implementing laws and policies in respect of prison

rests with the respective State Governments and

27

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

Union Territory Administrations. The obligation to

operationalize reformative and humane standards,

therefore, lies squarely with these authorities, which

alone possess the legislative competence and

administrative control necessary to translate

constitutional mandates into institutional practice.

Failure to give effect to these frameworks does not

merely reflect an administrative lapse, but results in

a substantive erosion of the guarantee under Article

21, which mandates that incarceration shall not

extinguish the right to live with dignity or the

opportunity for reformation.

38. It must, however, be equally acknowledged that

under the doctrine of separation of powers, this Court

cannot assume the role of a legislature or embark

upon law-making in areas expressly reserved for the

elected branches of government. Judicial directions

cannot transgress into the realm of legislative policy

or supplant statutory frameworks, particularly in

matters where the Constitution vests primary

competence in the States. The role of this Court is not

to legislate, but to interpret, enforce and give

meaningful effect to constitutional guarantees, while

28

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

remaining mindful of the limits of institutional

authority and judicial restraint.

39. However, constitutional restraint cannot be

equated with constitutional abdication. Where

legislative or executive inaction results in persistent

or systemic violations of fundamental rights, this

Court cannot remain a passive spectator. In such

circumstances, constitutional adjudication cannot

retreat into silence, and this Court is duty-bound to

issue appropriate directions to ensure that existing

constitutional and statutory frameworks are

effectively implemented and that the guarantees

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India do not

remain merely formal or illusory. It is in this limited

but necessary supervisory role that this Court now

proceeds to issue the following directions to the

States and Union Territories.

VI. DIRECTIONS

40. In exercise of the powers under Articles 32 and

142 of the Constitution of India, and in furtherance

of the constitutional mandate under Article 21, this

Court hereby issues the following directions to the

29

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

Union of India as well as all the States and Union

Territories: -

A. All States and Union Territories shall, within a

period of three months from the date of this

judgment, formulate and notify a

comprehensive policy for early or premature

release of prisoners who are of advanced age

and/or are terminally ill. Such policy shall be

framed in consultation with the respective State

Legal Services Authorities so as to ensure

institutional coordination and effective

identification of eligible prisoners.

B. The said policy shall clearly define the eligibility

criteria and procedural framework for

consideration of release. In particular, the policy

shall expressly provide a clear and uniform

definition of “terminal illness”. For this

purpose, States and Union Territories may

adopt, with such modifications as deemed

appropriate, the definition contained in the

UNODC Handbook on Prisoners with Special

Needs (2009), which describes terminal illness

as “a condition where there is no reasonable

medical possibility that the patient’s condition

30

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

will not continue to degenerate and result in

death.”

C. The policy shall mandate constitution of

independent Medical Boards at the Divisional

and State levels for objective medical

assessment and certification of terminal illness

or advanced medical vulnerability. Such Boards

shall comprise suitably qualified medical

professionals and shall conduct periodic

reviews of identified cases.

D. The policy shall prescribe a time -bound,

transparent and accessible procedure for

submission, examination and disposal of

applications for early or compassionate release.

Procedural delays which result in prisoners

spending their final months or years under

incarceration shall be avoided, and all decisions

shall be reasoned and subject to judicial review.

E. The policy shall be integrated with the

functioning of Under Trial Review Committees

(UTRCs), and such committees shall be

mandatorily required to periodically review

cases of prisoners who are terminally ill, of

advanced age, or suffering from any other

31

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

condition leading to physical incapacitation, as

the case may be, and to recommend appropriate

legal action including bail, parole, remission or

release.

F. States and Union Territories may adopt the

framework proposed by NALSA, as annexed to

the present judgment as Schedule A, or modify

the same to suit local administrative and legal

requirements, provided that the core principles

of dignity, proportionality and humane

treatment are preserved.

G. The policy shall also provide for coordination

with community health services, social welfare

departments and legal aid institutions to ensure

continuity of medical care and social support for

prisoners released under compassionate

grounds.

H. The entire process for consideration of

applications for early, premature or

compassionate release shall be mandatorily

integrated with the National e-Prisons Portal.

Every application shall be digitally registered

and assigned a unique tracking number, an d

the portal shall record each stage of processing,

32

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

including submission of the application,

medical evaluation, reports of the prison

authorities, recommendations of the Medical

Board and the Under Trial Review Committee,

decisions of the competent authority, and the

reasons therefor. The e-Prisons portal shall

facilitate time-bound processing through

automated alerts and monitoring of statutory or

prescribed timelines, ensure transparency and

accountability in decision-making, generate

periodic compliance reports, and enable

effective supervisory oversight by the State

Government, the State Legal Services Authority,

and other competent authorities, while

maintaining appropriate safeguards for the

confidentiality and privacy of prisoners’ medical

and personal information.

I. The Union of India shall, through the Ministry

of Law and Justice, Ministry of Home Affairs

and the National Informatics Centre (NIC) under

the Ministry of Electronics and Information

Technology (MeitY), provide all necessary

technical support, digital infrastructure,

software development, maintenance and

33

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

capacity-building assistance to the States and

Union Territories to facilitate effective

compliance with the directions issued by this

Court. The National Informatics Centre shall

ensure that the e-Prisons portal is suitably

configured, upgraded and maintained to enable

seamless implementation of the framework

directed herein, including digital processing,

monitoring and tracking of applications for

early, premature or compassionate release, and

shall extend all necessary assistance to the

States and Union Territories to ensure uniform,

timely and effective implementation of these

directions.

J. The Union of India through the Ministry of Law

and Justice, and all the States and Union

Territories shall file a compliance affidavits

before this Court within six months, indicating

the status of compliance with the directions

issued hereinabove as well as the status of the

formulation and implementation of the

aforesaid policy, including data regarding the

number of prisoners identified, released, and

those presently under consideration.

34

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

K. A copy of this judgment shall be forthwith

transmitted by the Registry of this Court to the

Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice ,

Government of India; Secretary, Ministry of

Home Affairs, Government of India; the

Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and

Information Technology, Government of India;

and the Chief Secretaries of all the States and

Union Territories, for ensuring due compliance

with the directions issued hereinabove.

L. The Registry is directed to implead the States of

Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Gujarat,

Karnataka, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram,

Nagaland, Sikkim and Uttarakhand, as well as

the Union Territories of Andaman and Nicobar

Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli

and Daman and Diu, Jammu and Kashmir,

Ladakh, Lakshadweep and Puducherry, as

party-respondents in the present proceedings.

41. The directions issued hereinabove are intended

to give meaningful effect to the constitutional

guarantee of life with dignity and to ensure that the

criminal justice system does not inflict needless

suffering upon those whose vulnerability is manifest

35

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

and irreversible. This Court reiterates that

punishment must remain anchored in

proportionality, humanity and the possibility of

reform, and that incarceration cannot be permitted to

degenerate into institutional neglect incompatible

with the values of a constitutional democracy.

42. List on 19

th January, 2027 for consideration of

the compliance affidavits to be filed by the States and

Union Territories.

….……………………J.

(VIKRAM NATH )

...…………………….J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

NEW DELHI;

JULY 16, 2026.

36

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

SCHEDULE A

I. For Terminally Ill Prisoners:

Step 1 Initial screening and identification by Prison

Medical Officer.

Step 2 Review by Undertrial Review Committee (UTRC)

in accordance with the “UTRC Framework”.

Step 3 Eligible Under Trial Prisoners/Convicts shall be

referred to the District Medical Board, which

shall determine whether the prisoner is

“terminally ill”. Upon such determination, a

certificate of terminal illness may be issued.

Step 4 The District Medical Board shall forward the

names of recommended Under Trial

Prisoners/Convicts to the State Government for

consideration of release.

Step 5 In cases where the Under Trial

Prisoners/Convicts are not recommended by the

State Government for release, the concerned

District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) may

move appropriate applications, if not already

filed.

37

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025

II. For Old Aged prisoners:

Step 1 Review by Undertrial Review Committee (UTRC)

in accordance with the “UTRC Framework”.

Step 2 UTRC, through the Prison Superintendent, shall

forward the names of recommended Under Trial

Prisoners/Convicts to the State Government for

consideration of release, to be decided on a case-

to-case basis.

Step 3 In cases where the Under Trial

Prisoners/Convicts are not recommended by the

State Government for release, the concerned

District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) may

move appropriate applications, if not already

filed.