As per case facts, the Writ Petition concerns severe overcrowding in prisons and the under-utilization of Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) across India, despite previous Supreme Court directions and model frameworks ...
2026 INSC 198 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
SUHAS CHAKMA ….PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND
ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
2
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
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: -
INDEX
I. PROLOGUE ............................................................... 4
II. INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 10
III. OVERVIEW OF THE WRIT PETITION AND
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT .......................... 12
IV. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND
CONVENIENCE COMPILATIONS FILED BY THE AMICUS
CURIAE PURSUANT TO THIS COURT’S ORDER DATED
17
TH
MAY, 2024 ........................................................... 24
A. AFFIDAVIT OF UNION OF INDIA .......................................... 24
B. BEST PRACTICES IN THE MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE OF
OCIS .................................................................................... 25
C. BPR&D REPORT: SHORTCOMINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28
D. METHODOLOGY ADOPTED BY THE AMICUS CURIAE REGARDING
DATA COLLECTION IN TERMS OF ORDER DATED 17
TH
MAY, 2024 32
E. QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS .................................................. 35
F. QUALITATIVE FINDINGS .................................................... 40
V. INTERNATIONAL GUIDING PRINCIPLES .................. 46
VI. DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK RELEVANT TO THE
ISSUE AT HAND ........................................................... 49
3
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
A. CHAPTER XXIII OF THE MODEL PRISON MANUAL, 2016 .... 49
B. MODEL PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 2023 52
VII. CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK: RIGHT TO LIFE,
DIGNITY OF PRISONERS AND REHABILITATIVE JUSTICE
IN PRISONS ................................................................. 56
VIII. ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATION ........................ 70
A. UNDER-UTILISATION OF EXISTING OCI FACILITIES AND ABSENCE OF
OCIS IN SEVERAL STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES ................... 72
B. EXCLUSION AND UNDER-REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN
PRISONERS FROM OCIS ......................................................... 77
C. STRICT ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND INADEQUATE
REHABILITATIVE AVENUES WITHIN OCIS .................................. 86
D. LACK OF UNIFORMITY AND THE NEED FOR COMMON MINIMUM
STANDARDS FOR GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF OCIS ACROSS
STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES............................................ 93
E. COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF OCIS VIS-À-VIS CLOSED PRISONS AND
THE IMPERATIVE FOR EXPANSION ............................................ 96
IX. OPERATIVE DIRECTIONS ...................................... 104
A. UNDER-UTILISATION OF EXISTING OCI FACILITIES AND ABSENCE OF
OCIS IN SEVERAL STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES ...................... 105
B. EXCLUSION AND UNDER-REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN
PRISONERS FROM OCIS ....................................................... 110
C. STRICT ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND INADEQUATE
REHABILITATIVE AVENUES WITHIN OCIS ................................ 113
D. LACK OF UNIFORMITY AND THE NEED FOR COMMON MINIMUM
STANDARDS FOR GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF OCIS ACROSS
STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES.......................................... 118
E. EXPANSION OF OPEN CORRECTIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE .... 127
F. COMPLIANCE AND MONITORING ...................................... 129
X. CONCLUSION ........................................................ 134
4
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
“No one truly knows a nation until one has been
inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by
how it treats its highest citizens but its lowest
ones.”
- Nelson Mandela
I. PROLOGUE
1. The strength of a constitutional democracy is
tested not merely by the liberties it guarantees in
abstraction, but by the manner in which it treats
those who stand at its margins, including persons
deprived of their liberty with due process of law.
Prisons, though instruments of lawful confinement,
are not spaces where constitutional values can cease
to operate. The guarantee of life and personal dignity
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India extends
beyond the prison gates and obliges the State to
ensure that incarceration does not degenerate into
inhumanity. Overcrowded prisons, bereft of humane
living conditions and rehabilitative avenues, strike at
the very core of this constitutional promise and call
5
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
for sustained institutional response rather than
sporadic remedial measures. It is within this
constitutional conscience that the present
proceedings have emerged.
2. This Court, as far back as in the year 2018, by
its order dated 8
th May, 2018 passed in In Re:
Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons , had directed
all States and Union Territories to take immediate
steps to align their respective prison rules with the
Model Uniform Rules for the Administration of Open
Correctional Institutions, and to duly adopt, notify
and implement the said rules, along with
undertaking appropriate measures for the effective
implementation and strengthening of the framework
regarding Open Correctional Institutions within their
respective jurisdictions. The said proceedings
continue to engage the attention of this Court and
form part of an ongoing judicial endeavour to address
6
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
the systemic infirmities afflicting prison
administration in the country, particularly the
persistent problem of overcrowding.
3. The figures emerging from the National Crime
Records Bureau Report titled “Prison Statistics
India, 2023”, paints a deeply concerning picture. On
a cumulative basis, prisons across the country are
operating at an occupancy level of 120.8%, with
several States including Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh and
Uttarakhand as well as the National Capital Territory
of Delhi, reporting occupancy levels exceeding 150%.
Such chronic overcrowding is not merely an index of
administrative strain, but has profound implications
for human dignity, prison safety, access to
healthcare, prospects of rehabilitation and adherence
to the constitutional guarantees. For ready reference,
7
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
the relevant table extracted from the said report is
reproduced hereinbelow: -
8
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
4. While dealing with the issue of overcrowding in
In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons , this
Court had already taken note of the fact that Open
Correctional Institutions constitute one of the most
effective, humane and sustainable responses to
congestion in closed prisons, while simultaneously
advancing the objectives of reformative and
rehabilitative penology. The present proceedings
reaffirm that assessment. The statistics placed before
this Court by the learned amicus curiae, based on
data furnished from the Study titled “The Open
Prisons of Rajasthan” published by Rajasthan
State Legal Services Authority, indicate that the
per-prisoner monthly expenditure in an Open
Correctional Institution is approximately Rs.500/-,
as compared to Rs.7,094/- per month in a closed
prison. After reserving the judgment in the present
proceedings, this Court requisitioned updated fiscal
9
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
data from the State of Rajasthan, which further
affirmed the earlier position and revealed that the
per-prisoner per-day expenditure in closed prisons is
approximately Rs.333.12/-, whereas in open prisons
it is approximately Rs.49.60 /-, thereby
demonstrating a substantial and sustained cost
differential in favour of Open Correctional
Institutions. These figures highlight not merely the
rehabilitative efficacy of Open Correctional
Institutions, but also their marked fiscal prudence
and administrative sustainability, reinforcing their
status as a rational and constitutionally aligned
component of the criminal justice and prison
administration framework.
5. Despite repeated judicial exhortations, the
availability of model frameworks and the clear
constitutional, penological and fiscal advantages of
Open Correctional Institutions, this Court is
10
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
constrained to observe that the response of several
States and Union Territories continues to be marked
by rank apathy and indifference. The persistent
failure to meaningfully adopt and expand what is
widely acknowledged as one of the most effective
solutions to overcrowding in prisons and reformative
theory of punishment reflects a troubling disconnect
between constitutional mandate and executive
action. It is in this backdrop that this Court is
compelled, once again, to revisit the issue and to lay
down structured and enforceable directions, so that
Open Correctional Institutions are no longer treated
as peripheral experiments, but are firmly embedded
as integral components of a humane, reformative and
constitutionally compliant correctional system.
II. INTRODUCTION
6. The instant writ petition has drawn the
attention of this Court towards conditions of
11
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
confinement in the existing prison system that invite
deeper reflection on the nature and purpose of
punishment itself. Beyond the immediate concerns
placed before this Court lie fundamental questions
about whether systems designed for correction
continue to embody the values of correction,
reformation and social healing, or whether they have
hardened and evolved into structures of exclusion
and persecution beyond mere incarceration . The
petition, while anchored in specific grievances, thus
opens a wider constitutional inquiry into the State’s
duty to ensure that confinement of prisoners and
more specifically, convicts remain consistent with
evolving standards of human dignity and fairness.
7. The issues raised in the present proceedings are
neither transitory nor confined to exceptional or
isolated circumstances. They engage the enduring
obligation of the State to harmonise legitimate
12
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
penological/sentencing objectives with the
constitutional imperatives of dignity, equality,
reformation and reintegration into the society. The
present case, therefore, requires this Court to not
only examine the immediate measures for
decongestion in prisons, but also to consider and
evaluate structural and systemic approaches that
further purposive rehabilitation, enable social
reintegration, and secure meaningful access to
justice for prisoners, while ensuring accountability
and uniformity in prison admi nistration across
States and Union Territories. It is in this normative
and institutional framework that this Court proceeds
to examine the matters that arise for determination.
III. OVERVIEW OF THE WRIT PETITION AND
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT
8. The instant writ petition was instituted under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India raising serious
13
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
concerns regarding the persistent problem of
overcrowding in prisons across the country. The
petition highlighted that excessive prison
populations, far exceeding sanctioned capacities, had
resulted in inhuman and degrading living conditions
for inmates, thereby infringing their fundamental
rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The
petitioner had, inter alia, sought directions for
creation of effective and permanent mechanisms to
address and alleviate prison overcrowding, including
decongestion measures, transfer of inmates, and
formulation of structural avenues to ensure humane
conditions of detention, particularly in the backdrop
of public health emergencies like the COVID -19
pandemic. For the sake of ready reference, the reliefs
sought in the writ petition are reproduced
hereinbelow: -
“(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus or any other writ, order or direction that
14
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the present case,
directing the Respondents to provide the latest
prison-wise information occupancy against the
sanctioned capacity;
(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus or any other writ, order or direction that
this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the present case to make
the High Powered Committee established by this
Hon’ble Court in Re: Contagion of COVID 19 Virus
in Prison [Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil)
No.1/2020] permanent one with the power to (i)
regularly monitor occupancy against sanctioned
capacity in each prison; and (ii) recommend release
of prisoners on bail or parole and transfer of
prisoners from overcrowded prisons to the prisons
having lower number of prisoners vis-a-vis
sanctioned capacity in the same State/UT to ensure
that no prisoner is subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
because of overcrowding and unhygienic conditions
and prisoners enjoy the right to be treated with
humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity
of the human person;
(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus or any other writ, order or direction that
this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the present case,
directing the High Powered Committee established
by this Hon’ble Court in Re: Contagion of COVID
19 Virus in Prison [Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil)
No.1/2020] to file Quarterly Report(s) before the
Chief Justice of their respective High Court,
informing/intimating (i) about occupancy against
sanctioned capacity in each prisons; and (ii) release
of prisoners on bail or parole and transfer of
prisoners from overcrowded prisons to the prisons
having lower number of prisoners vis-a-vis
sanctioned capacity in the same State/UT; and
15
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
(d) pass such other and further order(s) that this
Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case and in the interest
of justice/equity.”
9. The instant writ petition was initially heard
along with In Re: Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in
Prison
1. However, after deeper evaluation, the same
came to be de-tagged vide order dated 17
th July,
2023. Thereafter, on 9
th May, 2024, this Court, while
continuing its examination of the issues arising in the
present matter, observed that one of the viable and
sustainable measures for addressing the problem of
overcrowding in prisons would be the establishment
of open prisons/camps, which would simultaneously
subserve the objective of rehabilitation and
reintegration of prisoners into the society. In order to
facilitate a comprehensive and balanced adjudication
of the issues involved, this Court appointed Mr. K.
1
Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.1/2020
16
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
Parameshwar as amicus curiae, in addition to Mr.
Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Advocate, who was
already assisting the Court. This Court also
requested Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, learned counsel
appearing for the National Legal Services Authority
(NALSA), to assist the Court in these proceedings.
The relevant extract of the aforesaid order is
reproduced hereinbelow: -
“3. One of the solutions for overcrowding of the
prisons can be establishing open prisons/camps.
4. The said system is efficiently working in the State
of Rajasthan.
5. Apart from addressing the issue of congestion
in prisons, it also addresses the issue of
rehabilitation of prisoners.
6. We, therefore, request Shri K. Parameshwar,
who has worked on the said issue, to assist this
Court as an Amicus Curiae, in addition to Mr.
Vijay Hansaria, Senior Advocate, who is already
assisting us in this matter. We also request Ms.
Rashmi Nandakumar, learned counsel, who
appears for the NALSA, to assist us in this
matter.”
[Emphasis supplied]
10. When the matter came up for hearing before
this Court on 17
th May, 2024, Mr. K. Parameshwar,
17
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
learned amicus curiae, informed the Court that the
Union of India has engrafted a model draft manual
referring to such facilities as “Open Correctional
Institutions”
2
, and that despite their existence
under varying nomenclature in several States, these
institutions are not being utilised to their optimum
capacity. It was submitted that strengthening the
OCIs would not only alleviate overcrowding in prisons
but will also further the rehabilitation of prisoners
and address social inequities faced by them.
11. Considering the seminal importance of the
issue, this Court requested the learned amicus curiae
and Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, learned counsel
appearing for NALSA, to jointly prepare and circulate
a questionnaire to all the States to ascertain the
status and functioning of such institutions. The
2
Hereinafter, being referred to as “OCIs”.
18
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
States of Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Kerala and West
Bengal were directed to share their best practices and
regulatory frameworks with NALSA. The Ministry of
Home Affairs was directed to place a status report on
record regarding developments subsequent to the
formulation of the Model Prison Manual, 2016 and
the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act,
2023. This Court further directed that there shall be
no reduction in the area of open -air
camps/institutions/prisons, wherever they are
functioning. The relevant extract of the aforesaid
order is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“1. Vide order dated 9
th
May 2024 we had flagged the
issue with regard to the open-air
camps/institutions/prisons, etc.
2. Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae
submits that a model draft manual has been
prepared by the Union of India wherein the
nomenclature ‘Open Correctional Institutions’ is
used for such facilities.
3. The data put on record wherein such Open
Correctional Institutions are shown to be
functioning in different names, would further
show that the said institutions are not being
utilized to their optimum capacity.
19
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
4. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that
strengthening of the Open Correctional
Institutions, apart from addressing the present
issue of overcrowding of prisons, would also help
in the rehabilitation of prisoners and do away
with caste discrimination faced by them.
5. Taking into consideration the importance of
the matter, we request Shri K. Parameshwar, the
learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. Rashmi
Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the
NALSA, to jointly prepare and circulate a
questionnaire to obtain information from all the
States in respect of the status and functioning of
the Open Correctional Institutions.
6. We direct four States i.e. Rajasthan,
Maharashtra, Kerala and West Bengal, where
such facilities are functioning most robustly, to
share their best practices, applicable rules,
guidelines and experience on setting up
expansion and management of the Open
Correctional Institutions with the NALSA.
7. The Registry shall communicate this order to the
Chief Secretary of the States of Rajasthan,
Maharashtra, Kerala and West Bengal for
compliance.
8. We further direct the Ministry of Home Affairs
to present a status report on recent
developments in respect of the Open
Correctional Institutions after coming of the
Model Prison Manual, 2016 and the Model
Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023.
9. We are also informed that there is a proposal
to reduce the area at Sanganer Open Air Camp at
Jaipur. We thus direct that there shall be no
attempt of reduction in area of open-air
camps/institutions/prisons, wherever they are
functioning.”
[Emphasis supplied]
20
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
12. Subsequently, in order to ensure structured
and effective adjudication of the issues arising in the
present proceedings, this Court considered it
appropriate to segregate the adjudication into two
distinct heads, namely: (i) the issue pertaining to
Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs), and (ii) the
issue concerning the provision of legal aid to
prisoners. Insofar as the second issue is concerned,
this Court delivered its judgment on 23
rd October,
2024, wherein wide -ranging and substantive
directions were issued to strengthen and
institutionalise the framework for providing legal aid
to prisoners. With respect to the first issue relating to
OCIs, this Court, in the interest of justice and to
enable full compliance with its earlier directions,
granted further time to the States and Union
Territories which had not complied with the order
dated 17
th May, 2024 to furnish the information
21
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
sought in the questionnaire circulated by the learned
amicus curiae. Accordingly, opportunities were
afforded on two occasions, i.e., vide orders dated 15
th
July, 2024 and 20
th August, 2024, to such States and
Union Territories to place the requisite data and
responses on record. It was further clarified that in
the event of any State Government or Union Territory
failing to respond in terms of the orders passed by
this Court, this Court will be constrained to direct the
personal presence of the Chief Secretary of the State
or Union Territory concerned. The relevant extracts
of the aforesaid orders are reproduced hereinbelow: -
“Order dated 15
th
July, 2024
5. Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae
submits that some of the States/Union Territories
are yet to file their respective response in pursuance
to the directions issued by this Court on 17
th
May,
2024.
6. We, therefore, direct the Registrar (Judicial) to
forward a copy of the order dated 17
th
May, 2024
along with the present order asking the Chief
Secretaries of States of Andhra Pradesh,
Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jammu &
Kashmir, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Manipur,
Nagaland, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh
22
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
and the Administrators of Andaman & Nicobar,
Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, Delhi,
Lakshadweep, Puducherry and Ladakh to file
their responses in pursuance to the order dated
17th May, 2024 passed by this Court.
7. The responses by the concerned States/Union
Territories shall be filed within a period of three
weeks from today.
Order dated 20
th
August, 2024
1. In order dated 15
th
July, 2024, this Court had
directed to the Chief Secretary of the various
States/Union Territories to submit their response to
the order dated 17
th
May, 2024.
2. Shri K. Parameshwar, learned senior counsel
(A.C.) states that the States/Union Territories of
Gujarat, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir,
Maharashtra, Manipur, Nagaland, Telangana, Uttar
Pradesh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu,
Lakshadweep, Puducherry and Ladakh, have not yet
filed their response.
3. It is further stated that the NCT of Delhi,
Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab
have not submitted qualitative/quantitative charts,
despite the questionnaire indicating that these
states have Open Correctional Institutes.
4. It is further stated that the affidavits filed by the
State of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu also do not
contain all the requisite specific information.
5. We, therefore, direct that all the States/Union
Territories, which have not yet filed their
response, to file complete response within a
period of four weeks from today.
6. The States/Union Territories, which have not
given complete information, shall also give
complete information within a period of four
weeks from today.
7. The registry is directed to ensure that the
order is communicated to the Chief Secretaries
of all the States/Union Territories concerned.
8. We further clarify that if any of the State
Governments or Union Territories do not
23
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
respond in terms of the orders passed by this
Court, we will be compelled to direct the
presence of the Chief Secretary of the
States/Union Territories concerned before this
Court.
9. We direct the aforementioned States and Union
Territories to fill and submit both of the following
within four weeks from today, so that complete
information may be ascertained and analysed:
(i) Qualitative questionnaire accessible at
https://forms.gle/feCudANsXDBL3o3J8 ; and
(ii) Quantitative OCI Chart accessible at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11jMrb
7YCurpLOtdqemyYswQA9tZhwTuNrhaOYhzkV
Mo/edit?usp=sharing”
[Emphasis supplied]
13. It is relevant to note that despite repeated
opportunities being given to the States and Union
Territories, States of Telangana, Haryana and
Madhya Pradesh have not placed on record the
requisite information as sought for by the learned
amicus curiae.
24
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
IV. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND
CONVENIENCE COMPILATIONS FILED BY
THE AMICUS CURIAE PURSUANT TO THIS
COURT’S ORDER DATED 17
th
MAY, 2024
A. Affidavit of Union of India
14. Learned amicus curiae, in the written
submissions has adverted to the affidavit dated 9
th
July, 2024 filed by the Union of India, wherein it was
stated that the Model Prison Manual, 2016 with a
specific chapter devoted to OCIs and the Model
Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, has
been circulated to all the States and Union Territories
for guidance on prison administration. In the said
affidavit, it has been further submitted that since
“prisons and persons detained therein” is a subject
falling under the State List in the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution of India, it is for the respective
States and Union Territories to take appropriate
policy decisions and administrative action for the
25
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
establishment, expansion and effective functioning of
OCIs. Thus, the Union of India has emphasised that
while normative guidance has been provided at the
central level, the primary responsibility of
implementation rests with the States and Union
Territories.
B. Best Practices in the Management and
Governance of OCIs
15. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court
vide order dated 17
th May, 2024, the States of
Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Kerala and West Bengal
were asked to share their best practices, applicable
rules, guidelines and experiential inputs in relation
to the establishment, expansion and management of
OCIs. In compliance therewith, the States of
Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Kerala have placed on
record their respective submissions, detailing the
operational frameworks and rehabilitative models
26
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
adopted in their jurisdictions. The material placed by
these States reflects varied but instructive
approaches towards governance of OCIs, with
emphasis on graded eligibility criteria for transfer
from closed prisons, opportunities for family
integration, avenues for meaningful work and
remuneration, educational and vocational training,
internal self-governance mechanisms, parole and
remission benefits, and wider access to healthcare
and legal aid.
16. From the submissions of the State of
Maharashtra, it emerges that prisoners are selected
for transfer to open prisons on the basis of seniority,
conduct and physical and mental ability to work,
subject to the completion of a stipulated portion of
sentence awarded to them. Inmates are permitted to
reside with their families, cultivate land, prepare
their own meals and earn wages at rates significantly
27
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
higher than those in closed prisons. The State has
also provided for agricultural and allied vocational
training, employment with government and private
entities, enhanced remission, parole and furlough,
periodic visits to native places, and financial
assistance upon release, all of which are stated to
contribute to improved mental health, rehabilitation
and reintegration into the society.
17. The State of Rajasthan has highlighted its well-
established open-air camp system, where inmates,
including women, are permitted to reside with their
families, pursue livelihoods outside the camp during
the day, and participate in internal self-governance
through mechanisms such as the OCI Sarpanch
System, Prisoner Panchayat and Works and
Discipline Committee. Provisions for education and
Anganwadi facilities for children, cooperative
societies for daily needs, and significantly lower staff
28
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
requirements and reduced expenditure as compared
to closed prisons have also been emphasised.
18. The State of Kerala has placed on record a
model of OCIs characterised by structured eligibility
based on good conduct and health, equal wages,
enhanced parole, extensive opportunities for higher
education, diversified vocational training aligned with
contemporary skills, spiritual and recreational
activities, weekly legal aid visits, and the availability
of on-site hospital facilities, thereby reflecting a
comprehensive rehabilitative framework.
C. BPR&D Report: Shortcomings and
Recommendations
19. This Court has also been apprised of a detailed
empirical study conducted by Dr. Murali Karnam,
Professor of Human Rights and Director, Access to
Justice Programme, NALSAR University of Law, titled
“A Study of the Functioning and Impact of Open
29
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
Prisons on Rehabilitation of Prisoners”, which was
submitted to the Bureau of Police Research and
Development (BPR&D), Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India. The study, covering the States
of Rajasthan, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal
Pradesh, West Bengal, Assam and Maharashtra,
notes that OCIs constitute only about six per cent of
the total prisons across the country. The BPR&D
Report, inter alia, highlights the following
shortcomings in the governance and functioning of
OCIs:-
(i) OCIs are severely under-utilised across States
due to stringent rules and criteria for transfer
from closed prisons to OCIs. There is no
uniformity in the eligibility criteria for transfer
from closed prisons, with some States
prescribing unduly long periods of incarceration
30
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
before an inmate becomes eligible for transfer to
an OCI;
(ii) In several States, either no OCI facilities exist
for women, or women prisoners are not eligible
for transfer to such institutions;
(iii) Most OCIs function predominantly as
agricultural camps, with work largely confined
to farming and allied activities, and in some
cases, the OCIs are perceived as hard labour
camps, thereby diluting their rehabilitative
character; and
(iv) Educational facilities are often absent, and
vocational training remains inadequately
diversified and ill-equipped to meet
contemporary requirements or to meaningfully
empower the prisoners for employability and
self-reliance upon release.
31
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
20. The learned amicus curiae has further drawn
the attention of this Court to the recommendations
contained in the BPR&D Report, which articulate,
inter alia, the following normative best practices for
governance of OCIs: -
• facilitating early transfer of young prisoners to
promote reformation , rehabilitation and
reintegration into the society;
• limiting prolonged confinement in closed prisons
to exceptional cases;
• shifting from agriculture-centric camps to OCIs
located in or near urban and industrial centres;
• aligning education and vocational training with
market-relevant survival skills;
• basing eligibility for transfer on reformative
character and potential rather than rigid and fixed
number of years of incarceration and the gravity of
their offences;
32
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
• enabling inmates to reside with their families as a
bridge to social reintegration; and
• ensuring the availability of well -equipped
healthcare facilities within OCIs to avoid traumatic
reversion to closed prisons for medical care.
D. Methodology adopted by the amicus curiae
regarding data collection in terms of order
dated 17
th
May, 2024
21. It has been further stated that pursuant to the
directions issued by this Court vide order dated 17
th
May, 2024, the learned amicus curiae, in consultation
with Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, learned counsel
appearing for NALSA, prepared a comprehensive
questionnaire for being circulated to all the States
and Union Territories. The questionnaire was
structured in two parts, namely, one pertaining to
quantitative metrics and the other to qualitative
aspects, with the view of obtaining holistic and
33
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
evidence-based understanding of the status,
capacity, utilisation, and functioning of OCIs
including open barracks functioning within closed
prisons.
22. The detailed chart and questionnaire so
prepared were circulated through the State Legal
Services Authorities for onward transmission to the
Director General, Prisons and Correctional Services
in each State and Union Territory. The quantitative
component sought specific information regarding the
number of OCIs in each State and Union Territory,
their sanctioned capacity, present occupancy,
distribution of male and female prisoners, and the
number of children, if any, residing therein, the
responses to which were collated State-wise and
compiled into a consolidated chart.
3
3
Quantitative Chart in Convenience Compilation, Volume IV.
34
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
23. The qualitative component comprised an
exhaustive set of 55 questions, segregated under the
heads of General functioning, Applicable Rules,
Infrastructure and Management, Security Measures,
Rehabilitation, Work and Pay, Security Measures,
Rehabilitative Measures, and Punishments.
4 It is
stated that the questions were designed with
precision and granularity to elicit focused
information on operational models, eligibility and
transfer criteria, applicable statutory frameworks,
healthcare and living facilities, work allocation and
remuneration practices, security protocols, access to
education and vocational training, rehabilitative
measures for prisoners and their families, and the
nature of disciplinary mechanisms in place,
including reversion to closed prisons. The
methodology adopted was thus aimed at ensuring
4
List of Questions in Convenience Compilation, Volume II.
35
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
that the data placed before this Court was not merely
descriptive, but capable of facilitating a meaningful
comparative and normative assessment of the
functioning of OCIs across the country. The
responses to the qualitative questionnaire are
collated into a comprehensive chart.
5
E. Quantitative Findings
24. The quantitative data received from the States
and Union Territories reflects the overall capacity,
occupancy and utilisation of OCIs and open barracks
across the country. The data reveals significant inter-
State disparities and a pervasive trend of under-
utilisation, along with a pronounced gender
imbalance, with women prisoners being either
excluded or grossly under-represented in most
States. The major quantitative findings are set out
hereinbelow: -
5
Qualitative Chart in Convenience Compilation, Volume III.
36
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
OCIs:
(i) The quantitative data received from the States
and Union Territories reveals that, wherever
OCIs are functional, they remain significantly
under-utilised. Occupancy rates range from as
low as 6% in the open and semi-open prison in
the NCT of Delhi; 15% in Himachal Pradesh and
Uttarakhand; 20% in Assam; 27% in Uttar
Pradesh; 32% in Odisha; 33% in Andhra
Pradesh; 36% in Tamil Nadu; 44% in Gujarat;
51% in Punjab, to comparatively higher levels of
63% in Karnataka; 70% in Maharashtra; 79% in
West Bengal; 81% in Kerala; and 92% in
Rajasthan.
(ii) An exception to the trend of under-utilisation is
found in the State of Bihar, where, though four
OCIs exist, only one facility at Buxar is
37
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
functional, and the same is overcrowded, with
an occupancy of about 136%.
(iii) The State of Madhya Pradesh did not furnish
quantitative data in response to the
questionnaire. However, official data available
on the website of the Madhya Pradesh Prison
Department as of August, 2024 indicates that
the State has eight OCIs with a total capacity of
138 inmates, of which 130 are currently
housed, reflecting an occupancy rate of
approximately 94%.
(iv) Quantitative information was also not received
from the States of Telangana and Haryana.
(v) The following States have reported a complete
absence of OCI facilities: Arunachal Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, Goa, Jharkhand, Manipur,
Mizoram, Nagaland and Sikkim. All Union
38
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
Territories presently lack OCI facilities, except
the NCT of Delhi.
Open Barracks in Closed Prisons:
(vi) With respect to open barracks functioning
within closed prisons, under-utilisation is again
evident in the State of Tamil Nadu, with an
occupancy of only about 20%. Other States
reporting open barracks reflect comparatively
higher occupancy, i.e., 47% in H imachal
Pradesh, and 88% in Bihar, yet these facilities
too remain short of full utilisation.
(vii) In the State of Assam, open barracks are
reported in four districts. While the facility at
Jorhat is fully occupied, the remaining three
districts are overcrowded, resulting in an overall
occupancy of approximately 137%. By way of
illustration, in Dhubri, 504 inmates are housed
against a sanctioned capacity of only 221.
39
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
Similarly, open barracks in the State of
Maharashtra are also operating beyond
capacity, with an occupancy rate of about
171%, whereas comparable facilities in several
other States continue to remain under-utilised.
Access of Women Prisoners to OCIs:
(viii) The data overwhelmingly indicates that the
representation of women in OCIs is
substantially lower than that of men, reflecting
either the absence of facilities for women or
their exclusion from eligibility for transfer.
(ix) The States of Assam, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh,
Odisha, Punjab, Telangana, Uttarakhand, Uttar
Pradesh and West Bengal have expressly stated
that women prisoners are not eligible for
transfer to OCIs.
(x) In the women’s OCI at Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala, the occupancy is only about 30%,
40
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
whereas the two OCIs accommodating men in
the said State, report occupancies of about 82%
and 86%, thereby highlighting the disparate
under-utilisation of facilities meant for women.
(xi) The State of Himachal Pradesh has stated that
in the absence of open barracks for women,
women prisoners continue to be housed only in
closed prisons.
(xii) In the NCT of Delhi, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu,
although women are stated to be eligible for
transfer to OCIs, the quantitative data reveals
that no women have in fact been transferred.
(xiii) The status of women prisoners in Haryana and
Telangana remains unclear owing to non -
submission of quantitative data.
F. Qualitative Findings
25. The responses of the States and Union
Territories regarding qualitative aspects provide
41
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
insight into the manner in which OCIs are
administered and experienced in practice. They
highlight variations in eligibility norms, living
conditions, work, wages, healthcare, education,
family integration and disciplinary regimes, and
collectively reflect both the rehabilitative promise of
OCIs and the systemic constraints that presently
limit their transformative potential. The major
qualitative findings arising from the responses are set
out hereinbelow: -
(i) Age and Period of Incarceration Prior to
Transfer: The data reveals that prisoners are
required to spend anywhere between four to
twelve years in closed prisons before being
considered for transfer to OCIs, with the period
extending up to twenty-one years in Gujarat.
The average age of OCI inmates varies widely,
42
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
though it predominantly falls between thirty-
five to fifty years.
(ii) Engagement with Society and Nature of
Work: There is significant variation in
operational models of the OCIs in different
States and Union Territories. While some
States, such as West Bengal, permit OCI
members to seek employment in the general
community with minimal supervision and to live
with their families; States like Assam, Haryana,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab,
Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh also allow
members of OCIs to leave the OCI premises for
work, and return at a designated time. On the
other hand, States of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat,
Karnataka, Kerala, Odisha, Telangana, Tamil
Nadu, and Uttarakhand restrict inmates to
43
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
work within the OCI premises, largely in
agriculture or allied activities.
(iii) Family Life and Social Integration: Some
States
6 do not allow family members to visit
members of OCIs. States of Andhra Pradesh,
Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka,
Odisha, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh and
Uttarakhand, and NCT of Delhi prohibit
marriage or cohabitation during their tenure in
OCI and in most States, families and children
are not allowed to reside with OCI members.
Exception to the above are States of Assam,
Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar
Pradesh and West Bengal which allow the
families and children to reside with OCI
members within the facility.
6
NCT of Delhi and Himachal Pradesh.
44
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
(iv) Wages: Wide disparities exist in wages paid to
OCI members, ranging from as low as Rs.40 -
50/- per day in States of Punjab and Uttar
Pradesh for unskilled labour to Rs.230/- in
Kerala and up to Rs.548 /- in Karnataka,
indicating the absence of uniform standards
and raising concerns of inequity.
(v) Healthcare: OCIs are generally ill-equipped to
provide comprehensive healthcare, with many
facilities limited to out-patient clinics and
lacking basic medical infrastructure, thereby
necessitating reversion to closed prisons or
external facilities for treatment, which impinges
upon the rehabilitative philosphy underlying
OCIs.
(vi) Banking Facilities: Except in Maharashtra,
Rajasthan and Uttarakhand, most of the
responding States have provided banking
45
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
facilities to OCI members, enabling financial
inclusion and better management of earnings.
(vii) Education: Educational opportunities are
available to OCI members in most States, except
Haryana, Rajasthan and West Bengal. However,
access to education for family members and
children of OCI inmates remains limited and
uneven across States. For family members of
OCI members, educational facilities are only
provided in Gujarat, Kerala and Madhya
Pradesh and for children of OCI members,
educational facilities are provided in Assam,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan.
(viii) Vocational Training: While vocational training
is provided to OCI members in several States, it
remains largely confined to agriculture or
traditional trades. A few States offer technical or
ITI-type courses. In some States /Union
46
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
Territory, including NCT of Delhi, Haryana,
Rajasthan and Uttarakhand, such training is
lacking.
(ix) Disciplinary Measures: Punishments for
violations often include reversion to closed
prisons, and in several States, i.e., Gujarat,
Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil
Nadu, Telangana, and West Bengal, prisoners
are not permitted to return to OCIs thereafter.
V. INTERNATIONAL GUIDING PRINCIPLES
26. The international legal and normative
framework governing the treatment of prisoners is
reflected, inter alia, in the United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 2015,
commonly known as the Nelson Mandela Rules.
These Rules consolidate globally accepted principles
and best practices in prison administration and
emphasise that they are not intended to prescribe a
47
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
rigid model, but to articulate the essential elements
of humane, just and effective penal systems. The
Nelson Mandela Rules underscore that the legitimacy
of incarceration in a modern legal order rests not
merely on containment, but on the obligation of
State/prison authorities to uphold dignity, fairness
and humanity in the treatment of persons deprived
of liberty.
27. Of particular relevance is Rule 4
7, which
recognises that the purposes of imprisonment,
namely, protection of society and reduction of
recidivism, can be achieved only if the period of
incarceration is utilised to facilitate the reintegration
7
“Rule 4: 1. The purposes of a sentence of imprisonment or similar
measures deprivative of a person’s liberty are primarily to protect society
against crime and to reduce recidivism. Those purposes can be achieved
only if the period of imprisonment is used to ensure, so far as possible,
the reintegration of such persons into society upon release so that
they can lead a law-abiding and self-supporting life.
2. To this end, prison administrations and other competent
authorities should offer education, vocational training and work, as
well as other forms of assistance that are appropriate and available,
including those of a remedial, moral, spiritual, social and health- and
sports-based nature. All such programmes, activities and services should
be delivered in line with the individual treatment needs of prisoners.”
48
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
of prisoners into society, so that upon release they
may lead law-abiding and self-supporting lives. To
this end, the Rules mandate the provision of
education, vocational training, meaningful work and
other forms of assistance, including social, moral,
spiritual, health and sports-based programmes,
tailored to the individual needs of prisoners. Rule 89
8
further acknowledges that open prisons, which rely
not on physical security but on the self-discipline of
inmates, provide conditions most conducive to
rehabilitation of carefully selected prisoners. These
guiding principles lend authoritative international
recognition to the concept underlying OCIs, namely
8
“Rule 89: 1. The fulfilment of these principles requires
individualization of treatment and for this purpose a flexible system
of classifying prisoners in groups. It is therefore desirable that such
groups should be distributed in separate prisons suitable for the treatment
of each group.
2. These prisons do not need to provide the same degree of security for
every group. It is desirable to provide varying degrees of security according
to the needs of different groups. Open prisons, by the very fact that they
provide no physical security against escape but rely on the self -
discipline of the inmates, provide the conditions most favourable to
the rehabilitation of carefully selected prisoners (……).”
49
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
that environments characterised by trust,
responsibility and opportunity for self-development
are central to meaningful rehabilitation and dignified
reintegration of the prisoner in the society, and thus
provide a normative compass for prison reform in a
constitutional democracy.
VI. DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE S AT HAND
A. Chapter XXIII of the Model Prison Manual,
2016
28. Chapter XXIII of the Model Prison Manual,
2016, titled “Open Institutions”, provides the
domestic normative framework for the establishment
and governance of Open and Semi-Open Institutions
and embodies the reformative philosophy underlying
modern penology. Paragraph 23.01 declares that
such institutions are intended to operationalise the
ideology of reformation, correction and rehabilitation
50
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
by enabling prisoners to live and work in open
conditions so as to restore dignity, self-reliance and
social responsibility, while paragraph 23.02 exhorts
State Governments to frame detailed rules regarding
the administration of Open Work Camps, Semi-open
Training Institutions, Open Training Institutions and
Open Colonies suited to local conditions. The
underlying thrust of these provisions is that open
institutions are not merely alternative places of
confinement, but are structured environments
designed to facilitate gradual transition from custody
to responsible citizenship.
29. The Chapter prescribes a carefully calibrated
framework for selection and transfer of prisoners
from closed prisons to OCIs. Paragraphs 23.03 to
23.03.2 provide for exclusion of certain categories of
prisoners including but not limited to habitual
offenders, dangerous prisoners, prisoners convicted
51
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
of serious offences, including terrorism and
organised crime, as well as escape risks and
foreigners, and those suffering from mental illness,
and mandate the constitution of a
Selection/Classification Committee to undertake
individualised assessment based on conduct,
physical and mental fitness, progress in work and
training, self-discipline and sense of responsibility.
Paragraphs 23.04 to 23.13 envisage a graded
progression from semi-open institutions to open
training institutions, work camps and open colonies
after completion of specified portions of sentence. It
further mandates maintenance of minimum
standards of accommodation, sanitation, medical
care and welfare (para 23.16), meaningful
engagement through education, vocational training
and character-building programmes (para 23.18),
payment of higher wages than in closed prisons (para
52
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
23.19), and encouragement of family contact,
including periodic stays with family members (paras
23.20 and 23.21). These provisions, read together,
reflect a clear statutory commitment within domestic
prison jurisprudence to a regime based on trust,
responsibility and self-discipline, and furnish the
legal foundation for OCIs as instruments of dignity,
rehabilitation and social reintegration.
B. Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act,
2023
30. The reformative philosophy underlying OCIs
also finds recognition in the Model Prisons and
Correctional Services Act, 2023, which seeks to
modernise prison administration and reorient it
towards correction, rehabilitation and social
reintegration. Section 2(21) of the said Act defines an
“Open Correctional Institution” to mean “a place for
confinement of eligible prisoners on such conditions,
53
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
as may be prescribed under the rules, for giving them
more liberty outside a regular prison for facilitating
their rehabilitation after release.” This definition
underscores that OCIs are conceived not merely as
alternative custodial spaces, but as institutions
designed to confer graduated liberty upon carefully
selected prisoners, with rehabilitation after release as
their central objective.
31. Section 50 of the Act further provides the
enabling framework for the establishment and
governance of such institutions. Sub-section (1)
empowers the Government of the State/Union
Territory to establish and maintain as many open
and semi-open correctional institutions as may be
required; sub-section (2) authorises the grant of such
facilities or concessions in these institutions as may
assist prisoners in their rehabilitation into society;
and sub-section (3) contemplates the framing of rules
54
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
to regulate their management, including eligibility for
transfer, procedure for such transfer, and the
manner of dealing with violations of conditions by
prisoners. These provisions, read together, affirm the
legislative intent to institutionalise open and semi-
open correctional regimes as integral components of
a correctional system founded on trust, responsibility
and reform, while leaving it to the appropriate
Governments to prescribe detailed rules for their
effective operationalisation in accordance with local
needs and conditions.
32. It is significant to note that both the Model
Prison Manual, 2016 and the Model Prisons and
Correctional Services Act, 2023 , have been
formulated by the Union of India as guiding
normative frameworks to promote uniformity,
modernisation and reform-oriented standards in
prison administration across the country. However,
55
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
under the constitutional scheme, “prisons and
persons detained therein” fall within the legislative
and executive domain of the States and Union
Territories. The effective operationalisation of the
reformative vision embodied in these model
instruments, therefore, rests squarely with the States
and Union Territories, which are constitutionally
obligated to enact appropriate legislation, frame
detailed rules and evolve administrative frameworks
for prisons situated within their respective
jurisdictions. It is only through such translation of
model norms into binding statutory regimes and
enforceable institutional practices that OCIs can
truly evolve and function as instruments of dignity,
rehabilitation and social reintegration.
56
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
VII. CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK: RIGHT
TO LIFE, DIGNITY OF PRISONERS AND
REHABILITATIVE JUSTICE IN PRISONS
33. This Court has, over decades, consistently
articulated a jurisprudence that views incarceration
not merely as punitive deprivation of liberty, but as
an opportunity for reformation, rehabilitation and
restoration of human dignity. The constitutional
vision of penology evolved by this Court situates
prison administration within the broader mandate of
Article 21, requiring that conditions of confinement
be humane and oriented towards the transformation
of the individual into a law-abiding and socially
responsible citizen. The present inquiry into OCIs is
thus firmly anchored in a long line of decisions
wherein this Court has emphasised correctional,
rather than retributive goals of imprisonment.
57
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
34. A foundational articulation of prisoners’ rights
was made by this Court in D. Bhuvan Mohan
Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh
9, wherein it
was held that conviction does not denude a person of
all fundamental freedoms. The Court clarified that
while incarceration necessarily curtails certain
liberties incompatible with confinement, a convict
continues to enjoy all other fundamenta l rights,
including the sacrosanct guarantee under Article 21.
The judgment rejected the notions of “civil death”
upon conviction and reaffirmed that constitutional
protections continue to govern both the conditions
and the manner of imprisonment. In this context, the
three-Judge bench of this Court held: -
“6. Convicts are not, by mere reason of the
conviction, denuded of all the fundamental
rights which they otherwise possess. A
compulsion under the authority of law, following
upon a conviction, to live in a prison-house entails
by its own force the deprivation of fundamental
freedoms like the right to move freely throughout the
9
(1975) 3 SCC 185.
58
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
territory of India or the right to “practise” a
profession. A man of profession would thus stand
stripped of his right to hold consultations while
serving out his sentence. But the Constitution
guarantees other freedoms like the right to
acquire, hold and dispose of property for the
exercise of which incarceration can be no
impediment, likewise, even a convict is entitled
to the precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of
the Constitution that he shall not be deprived of
his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.”
[Emphasis supplied]
35. Building upon this constitutional foundation,
this Court in Mohammed Giasuddin v. State of
Andhra Pradesh
10, expounded the ethical
foundations of prison reform, emphasising the need
to humanise prison conditions and to infuse the
penal system with compassion, self -respect and
fraternity. The judgment reflects a jurisprudential
shift away from prisons as spaces of sufferin g
towards their conception as institutions of correction,
animated by the values of empathy and moral
10
(1977) 3 SCC 287.
59
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
renewal. It underscored that prison reform is not an
act of benevolence, but a constitutional imperative
rooted in respect for human dignity. This early
articulation laid the normative foundation for viewing
prisons as institutions of moral and social
regeneration, rather than mere sites of custodial
confinement. Relevant extract from the said
judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“24. We also think that the appellant has slipped
into crime for want of moral fibre. If competent Jail
Visitors could organise for him processes which will
instil into him a sense of ethics it may help him
become a better man. Self-expression and self-
realisation have a curative effect. Therefore, any
sports and games, artistic activity and/or
meditational course, may also reform. We strongly
recommend that the appellant be given such
opportunities by the jail authorities as will stimulate
his creativity and sensitivity. In this connection we
may even refer to proven advantages of kindling
creative intelligence and normalising inner
imbalance, reportedly accomplished by
Transcendental Meditation (TM) propagated by
Maharshi Mahesh Yogi in many countries in t he
West. Research projects conducted in various
countries bring out that people practising such or
like courses change their social behaviour and,
reduce their crime-proneness. We do not prescribe
anything definite but indicate what the prison
doctors may hopefully consider. While it is beyond
us to say whether the present facilities inside the
60
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
Central Prison, Hyderabad, make it feasible for the
appellant to enjoy these benefits and thereby
improve his inner being, we strongly feel that the
humanitarian winds must blow into the prison
barricades. More than this is expected in this
decade, when jail reforms, from abolition of
convict's costume and conscript labour to
restoration of basic companionship and
atmosphere of self-respect and fraternal touch,
are on the urgent agenda of the nation. Our
prisons should be correctional houses, not cruel
iron aching the soul.”
[Emphasis supplied]
36. The reformative vision was further developed
and strengthened in Dharambir and Anr. v. State
of Uttar Pradesh
11, wherein this Court underscored
that one of the principal purposes of imprisonment is
the decriminalisation of the offender and the
restoration of dignity, self-esteem and good
citizenship. The Court viewed meaningful work,
vocational engagement, fair rem uneration and
sustained family contact not merely as
administrative conveniences, but as instruments of
11
(1979) 3 SCC 645.
61
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
healing and transformation. The emphasis was on
replacing inherited harshness with humane
processes consistent with the spirit of the Republic,
signalling that prisons must reflect constitutional
morality as much as any other public institution.
Relevant extract from the said judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow: -
“2. We, however, notice that the petitioners in this
case are in their early twenties. We must naturally
give thought to the impact on these two young lives
of a life sentence which means languishing in prison
for years and years. Such induration of the soul
induced by indefinite incarceration hardens the
inmates, not softens their responses. Things as
they are, long prison terms do not humanise or
habilitate but debase and promote recidivism. A
host of other vices, which are unmentionable in
a judgment, ha unt the long careers of
incarceration, especially when young persons are
forced into cells in the company of callous
convicts who live in sex-starved circumstances.
Therefore, the conscience of the court constrains it
to issue appropriate directions which are policy-
oriented, as part of the sentencing process, designed
to make the life of the sentence inside jail restorative
of his crippled psyche. One of the principal
purposes of punitive deprivation of liberty,
constitutionally sanctioned, is decriminalisation
of the criminal and restoration of his dignity,
self-esteem and good citizenship, so that when
the man emerges from the forbidding gates he
becomes a socially useful individual. From this
62
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
angle our prisons have to travel long distances to
meet the ends of social justice.
(…..)
4. We may take advantage of this opportunity to
make a general direction to the State
Government to draw up a set of rules to reform
the pattern of prison life and to transform the
present system in itself so that the harsher
technologies inherited from imperial times are
abandoned in favour of humane processes
constitutionally enlivened under the Republic.
These days, Prison Commissions are at work in
many States and we do hope that the State of Uttar
Pradesh will hasten to bring compassion into
prisons.
5. We are told that the two prisoners are
agriculturists by profession. It is better, therefore,
that they are put to use as agriculturists, whether
within or without the prison compass. Being young,
they should also be trained in any other useful craft,
if they have aptitude therefore, so that when
eventually they emerge from the prison walls, they
may become sensitive citizens and not be an
addition to the criminals proliferating in the country.
We think that when prisoners are made to work,
as these two ought to be under our directions, a
small amount by way of wages could be paid and
should be paid so that the healing effect on their
minds is fully felt. Moreover, proper utilisation
of services of prisoners in some meaningful
employment, whether as culti vators or as
craftsmen or even in creative labour will be good
from the society's angle as it reduces the burden
on the Public Exchequer and the tension within.
Further, the humanising process will be
facilitated by keeping the prisoners in contact
with their family. This can be made feasible (a)
by allowing members of the family to visit the
prisoners, and (b) by the prisoners, under
63
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
guarded conditions, being permitted, at least
once a year, to visit their families. (…..)”
[Emphasis supplied]
37. The aforesaid principles were given expansive
constitutional articulation in Francis Coralie
Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of
Delhi
12, where this Court authoritatively declared
that fundamental rights do not flee the person as he
enters the prison gates. The Court gave expansive
intent to Article 21, holding that the right to life
includes the right to live with human dignity and the
bare necessities of life, and that any form of cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment is constitutionally
impermissible. The judgment firmly entrenched
prisoners’ rights within the heart of constitutional
morality and underscored that even within
confinement, the State remains bound by standards
of reasonableness, fairness and humanity. Relevant
12
(1981) 1 SCC 608.
64
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
extract from the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow: -
“5. The question which then arises is whether a
person preventively detained in a prison has any
rights which he can enforce in a court of law. Once
his freedom is curtailed by incarceration in a jail,
does he have any fundamental rights at all or does
he leave them behind, when he enters the prison
gate? The answer to this question is no longer res
integra. It has been held by this Court in the two
Sunil Batra cases that “fundamental rights do
not flee the person as he enters the prison
although they may suffer shrinkage necessitated
by incarceration”. The prisoner or detenu has all
the fundamental rights and other legal rights
available to a free person, save those which are
incapable of enjoyment by reason of
incarceration. (…..)
8. But the question which arises is whether the right
to life is limited only to protection of limb or faculty
or does it go further and embrace something more.
We think that the right to life includes the right to
live with human dignity and all that goes along with
it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as
adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and
facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself
in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing
and commingling with fellow human beings. Of
course, the magnitude and content of the
components of this right would depend upon the
extent of the economic development of the country,
but it must, in any view of the matter, include the
right to the basic necessities of life and also the right
to carry on such functions and activities as
constitute the bare minimum expression of the
human-self. Every act which offends against or
impairs human dignity would constitute
65
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
deprivation pro tanto of this right to live and it
would have to be in accordance with reasonable,
fair and just procedure established by law which
stands the test of other fundamental rights. Now
obviously, any form of torture or cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment would be offensive to
human dignity and constitute an inroad into this
right to live and it would, on this view, be
prohibited by Article 21 unless it is in
accordance with procedure prescribed by law, but
no law which authorises and no procedure which
leads to such torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment can ever stand the test of
reasonableness and non-arbitrariness: it would
plainly be unconstitutional and void as being
violative of Articles 14 and 21. It would thus be
seen that there is implicit in Article 21 the right to
protection against torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment which is enunciated in Article
5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
guaranteed by Article 7 of the In ternational
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This right to
live which is comprehended within the broad
connotation of the right to life can concededly
be abridged according to procedure established
by law and therefore when a person is lawfully
imprisoned, this right to live is bound to suffer
attenuation to the extent to which it is incapable
of enjoyment by reason of incarceration. The
prisoner or detenu obviously cannot move about
freely by going outside the prison walls nor can
he socialise at his free-will with persons outside
the jail. But, as part of the right to live with
human dignity and therefore as a necessary
component of the right to life, he would be
entitled to have interviews with the members of
his family and friends and no prison regulation
or procedure laid down by prison regulation
regulating the right to have interviews with the
members of the family and friends can be upheld
66
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
as constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and
21, unless it is reasonable, fair and just.”
[Emphasis supplied]
38. The jurisprudence, thus, evolved culminated in
explicit judicial recognition of open prisons as a
structural instrument of reform in Rama Murthy v.
State of Karnataka
13. In this decision, this Court
acknowledged that open-air prisons represent “one of
the most successful applications of the principle of
individualization of penalties with a view to social
readjustment”. The Court observed that no
managerial difficulty could be considered
insurmountable when weighed against the societal
good of transforming inmates into reformed persons.
The Court went on to exhort that “more and more
open prisons be opened”, even suggesting their
establishment at district headquarters across the
13
(1997) 2 SCC 642.
67
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
country. This judgment stands as a clear judicial
imprimatur for establishment of open prisons as a
structural response to both rehabilitation and prison
management challenges. In a clear articulation of the
constitutional vision underlying modern penology, a
three-Judge bench of this Court observed: -
“47. Open-air prisons play an important role in
the scheme of reformation of a prisoner which
has to be one of the desideratum of prison
management. They represent one of the most
successful applications of the principle of
individualization of penalties with a view to
social readjustment as stated by B. Chandra in
the Preface to his book titled “Open Air Prisons”.
It has been said so because release of offenders
on probation, home leave to prisoners,
introduction of wage system, release on parole,
educational, moral and vocational training of
prisoners are some of the features of the open -
air prison (camp) system. Chandra has stated in
the concluding portion of Chapter 3 at p. 150 (of
1984 Edn.) that in terms of finances, open
institution is far less costly than a closed
establishment and the scheme has a further
advantage that the Government is able to employ in
work, for the benefit of the public at large, the jail
population which would have otherwise remained
unproductive. According to the author, the
monetary returns are positive, and once put into
operation, the camps pay for itself.
(…..)
68
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
50. Open-air prisons, however, create their own
problem which are basically of management. We are,
however, sure that these problems are not such
which cannot be sorted out. For the greater good
of the society, which consists in seeing that the
inmate of a jail comes out, not as a hardened
criminal but as a reformed person, no managerial
problem is insurmountable. So, let more and
more open-air prisons be opened. To start with,
this may be done at all the District Headquarters
of the country.”
[Emphasis supplied]
39. Read together, these decisions establish that
this Court has long envisaged prisons as institutions
of correction, where dignity, self-respect and social
reintegration are not aspirational ideals but
constitutional necessities. The emphasis on
meaningful work, vocational training, payment of
wages, humane living conditions, and maintenance
of family ties reflects a coherent judicial philosophy
that punishment must be tempered by compassion
and directed towards reform. Open and semi-open
correctional institutions, premised on trust and self-
discipline, naturally align with this vision.
69
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
40. The jurisprudence emerging from these cases
also affirms that prison reform is not a matter of
executive grace but a constitutional obligation. This
Court has repeatedly reminded the State that the
manner in which it treats those behind bars is a
measure of its commitment to constitutional
morality. The transformation of prisons from sites of
suffering to spaces of opportunity is thus integral to
the promise of justice under the Constitution.
41. The present consideration of OCIs must,
therefore, be viewed as a continuation of this settled
line of precedents and principles. The call for
expansion, strengthening and humane governance of
OCIs is not novel; it flows directly from the doctrinal
foundations laid down by this Court, which have
consistently championed individualised treatment,
graded liberty, and rehabilitation as central to
modern penology.
70
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
42. The jurisprudence emanating from the
aforesaid decisions of this Court, thus, furnishes the
constitutional compass for the present inquiry. The
consistent emphasis of this Court on dignity,
humane treatment, meaningful engagement and
graded liberty situates OCIs at the very heart of the
reformative ideal of punishment. It is in the light of
these settled principles, and informed by the
empirical material and normative frameworks placed
before us, that this Court now proceeds to examine
the present status of OCIs across the country and to
determine the measures necessary to translate the
constitutional promise of rehabilitation and social
reintegration into effective institutional reality.
VIII. ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATION
43. The empirical data, written submissions and
normative frameworks placed before this Court and
analysed supra manifests that OCIs, though
71
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
conceived as living embodiments of reformative
justice, their functioning across the country remains
fragmented and uneven. The deficiencies revealed are
not merely administrative in nature but touch upon
the core constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality
and rehabilitation under Articles 14, 15, 21, 22 and
39A of the Constitution of India. The patterns of
under-utilisation, restricted access and uneven
governance of OCIs, thus, compel this Court to look
beyond episodic lapses and to reflect upon whether
our penal institutions, in their present form, remain
faithful to the constitutional promise that even those
who err are not beyond redemption .
44. The issues which, thus, arise for our
consideration may be structured under the following
heads, and we shall proceed to examine and answer
each of them ad seriatim.
72
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
A. Under-utilisation of Existing OCI Facilities and
Absence of OCIs in Several States and Union
Territories
45. The quantitative findings arising from the
exercise conducted by the learned amicus curiae in
pursuance of the order dated 17
th May, 2024 passed
by this Court unmistakably demonstrate that
wherever OCIs are functional, they remain
substantially under-utilised, even as closed prisons
continue to suffer from chronic overcrowding.
Further, a number of States and most Union
Territories continue to lack any OCI facilities
altogether. This situation defeats the very purpose of
OCIs, which are conceived as institutional bridges
between incarceration and reintegration, and as vital
mechanisms for translating the reformative ideal of
punishment into institutional reality.
73
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
46. We find merit in the submission, that all OCI
facilities across all States and Union Territories must
be filled to their respective capacities, so as to afford
greater opportunity to eligible prisoners for
rehabilitation and reformation. The judgments of this
Court; the Model Prison Manual, 2016; the Model
Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023; and the
Model Uniform Rules for the Administration of Open
Correctional Institutions consistently mandate that
such facilities be utilised adequately and
progressively to enhance their reformative potential.
47. It is apposite to mention herein that this Court
vide order dated 8
th May, 2018
14, in In Re Inhuman
Conditions in 1382 Prisons, while adverting to the
issue of open prisons, had noted the submission of
the learned Additional Solicitor General that the
Model Uniform Rules for the Administration of Open
14
(2018) 16 SCC 636.
74
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
Correctional Institutions had been finalised and
would be circulated to all State Governments for
notification and implementation. This Court had also
taken note of the submission of the learned amicus
curiae therein, that despite the existence of open
prisons in different parts of the country, their
capacities were not being fully utilised. This Court
had then expressed its expectation that the States
would faithfully and sincerely notify and implement
the said Model Rules, utilise the existing capacity of
open prisons, augment such capacity wherever
necessary, and seriously consider establishing open
prisons/OCIs in as many locations as possible. The
relevant portion of the said order reads as under: -
“8. It is stated by the learned Additional Solicitor
General that steps are being taken to encourage
setting up of open prisons. In fact, Model Rules
called the Model Uniform Rules for the
Administration of Open Correctional Institutions
have been framed. As far as the Union of India is
concerned, these Rules are final. The learned
Additional Solicitor General says that these Model
75
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
Rules will be circulated to all the State Governments
for notification and implementation. We expect that
on receipt of these Model Rules, necessary steps
will be taken by the State Governments to notify
and implement these Rules faithfully and
sincerely. It is submitted by the learned Amicus
Curiae that there are already 63 open prisons in
different parts of the country, but the existing
capacity is not being fully utilised. We expect the
State Governments concerned to not only try
and utilise the existing capacity of these open
prisons and if necessary, increase the existing
capacity of these open prisons in due course of
time. The State Governments and Union
Territory Administrations should also seriously
consider the feasibility of establishing open
prisons in as many locations as possible.”
[Emphasis supplied]
Regrettably, the material placed before us in the
present proceedings demonstrates that,
notwithstanding the clear exhortation and
expectation recorded by this Court as far back as in
2018, the States and Union Territories have not
faithfully complied with the said directions, as under-
utilisation continues to plague the system and the
establishment of OCIs remains sporadic and uneven
across the country, revealing a disquieting gap
76
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
between judicial guidance and institutional
compliance.
48. Reformation, rehabilitation and reintegration
must lie at the heart of the criminal justice system.
The constitutional guarantee of the right to life under
Article 21, as interpreted by this Court, encompasses
within its ambit the obligation of the State to facilitate
rehabilitation and enable prisoners to lead a life of
dignity and normalcy. The proper utilisation of
existing capacities of OCIs is therefore essential to
fulfil these rehabilitative goals. Continued under-
utilisation, despite availability of infrastructure,
reflects a systemic indifference to deploy reformative
mechanisms and warrants immediate corrective
measures.
77
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
B. Exclusion and Under-representation of Women
Prisoners from OCIs
49. The material placed before this Court reveals a
deeply troubling pattern of exclusion of women
prisoners from access to OCIs. The States of Assam,
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Punjab,
Telangana, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and West
Bengal have categorically stated that women are not
eligible for transfer to OCIs. Even in States/Union
Territory where women are stated to be eligible, such
as the NCT of Delhi, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, the
quantitative data shows that no women have, in fact,
been transferred to OCIs. In Kerala, while the OCIs
accommodating men are occupied at over 80%, the
OCI for women at Thiruvananthapuram has an
occupancy of merely 30%. In Himachal Pradesh,
women continue to be housed only in closed prisons
for want of open barracks, and the status in Haryana
78
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
and Telangana remains unclear due to non -
submission of data.
50. This systemic exclusion of women prisoners
from having access to the OCIs is plainly contrary to
both domestic norms and internationally accepted
standards governing prison administration. Chapter
XXIII of the Model Prison Manual, 2016, which lays
down the framework for OCIs, nowhere excludes
women from being eligibile for transfer to OCIs, and
on the contrary proceeds on the premise that open
institutions are to be guided by principles of
reformation, dignity and individualised treatment.
Internationally, Rule 2
15
of the Nelson Mandela
15
“Rule 2: 1. The present rules shall be applied impartially. There shall
be no discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property,
birth or any other status. The religious beliefs and moral precepts of
prisoners shall be respected.
2. In order for the principle of non-discrimination to be put into
practice, prison administrations shall take account of the individual
needs of prisoners, in particular the most vulnerable categories in
prison settings. Measures to protect and promote the rights of prisoners
with special needs are required and shall not be regarded as
discriminatory.”
79
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
Rules
16 mandates that prison rules shall be applied
impartially, without discrimination on grounds of sex
or any other status, and further requires prison
administrations to take account of the individual
needs of prisoners, particularly those belonging to
vulnerable categories, and to adopt special measures
for protecting and promoting their rights. Non -
discrimination under the Rules is thus not a formal
guarantee alone, but a substantive obligation to
ensure that vulnerable groups, including women, are
not excluded from beneficial regimes such as open
prisons.
51. The obligations and best practices governing
gender-responsive prison administration are further
underscored in the United Nations Rules for the
Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non -Custodial
Measures for Women Offenders, 2010 (the Bangkok
16
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
80
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
Rules). Rule 40
17
enjoins prison authorities to
develop and implement classification methods that
address the gender-specific needs and circumstances
of women prisoners, so as to ensure appropriate and
individualised planning for their early rehabilitation,
treatment and reintegration into society. Rule 45
18
goes a step further and mandates that options such
as home leave, open prisons, halfway houses and
community-based programmes shall be utilised to
the maximum possible extent for women prisoners,
to ease their transition from custody to liberty,
reduce stigma, and re-establish family and social ties
at the earliest stage. These norms leave no room for
17
Rule 40: Prison administrators shall develop and implement
classification methods addressing the gender -specific needs and
circumstances of women prisoners to ensure appropriate and
individualized planning and implementation towards those prisoners’
early rehabilitation, treatment and reintegration into society.
18
Rule 45: Prison authorities shall utilize options such as home leave,
open prisons, halfway houses and community -based programmes and
services to the maximum possible extent for women prisoners, to ease
their transition from prison to liberty, to reduce stigma and to re -
establish their contact with their families at the earliest possible
stage.
81
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
doubt that denial of OCI access to women prisoners
is inconsistent with internationally recognised
obligations and best practices governing humane and
reformative prison administration, and cannot be
reconciled with the constitutional vision of equality
and dignity that animates our crimin al
jurisprudence.
52. It is, therefore, no answer for the State to
contend that concerns of security, supervision or
management justify the exclusion of women
prisoners from access to OCIs. While the State is
undoubtedly entitled, and indeed duty-bound, to
adopt appropriate safeguards to prevent escape,
violence, misuse of liberty or safety issues, such
concerns cannot be accepted as a perpetual
justification for denying women prisoners the very
right to reformation and rehabilitation. The right to
reformation, flowing from the guarantee of life and
82
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
personal dignity under Article 21, inheres in every
prisoner, whether convicted or under-trial. To deny
women this right on speculative or generalised
security grounds is nothing but an attempt to
substitute administrative convenience for
constitutional obligation. The State must, therefore,
evolve gender-sensitive and security-conscious
mechanisms that facilitate and enable, rather than
frustrate, women’s access to OCIs, for constitutional
obligations cannot be made contingent upon
institutional convenience.
53. The aforesaid constitutional position finds
resonance in the jurisprudence of this Court as laid
down in Vikram Deo Singh Tomar v. State of
Bihar.
19 While dealing with inhuman conditions
faced by women inmates of a Care Home in Patna,
Bihar, this Court underscored that Article 21
19
1988 SCC OnLine SC 450.
83
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
guarantees every person a quality of life consistent
with human dignity, and that the Constitution shows
particular regard for women as a historically
disadvantaged class. The decision reaffirms that the
State, in the discharge of its constitutional
obligations, is duty-bound to ensure that conditions
of confinement do not erode the dignity, self-worth
and basic human rights of women, and that custodial
institutions must function in a manner that is
consistent with substantive equality, humane
treatment and the broader constitutional
commitment to social justice, observing as follows: -
“2. India is a welfare State governed by a
Constitution which holds the pride of place in
the hearts of its citizens. It lays special emphasis
on the protection and well being of the weaker
sections of society and seeks to improve their
economic and social sta tus on the basis of
constitutional guarantees spelled out in its
provisions. It shows a particular regard for
woman and children, and notwithstanding the
pervasive ethos of the doctrine of equality it
contemplates special provision being made for
them by law. This is only to be expected when an
enlightened constitutional system takes charge of
84
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
the political and socio-economic governance of a
society, which has for centuries witnessed the
relegation of women to a place far below their due.
We live in an age when this Court has
demonstrated, while interpreting Article 21 of
the Constitution, that every person is entitled to
a quality of life consistent with his human
personality. The right to live with human dignity
is the fundamental right of every Indian citizen.
And, so, in the discharge of its responsibilities to
the people, the State recognises the need for
maintaining establishments for the care of those
unfortunates, both women and children, who are
the castaways of an imperfect social order and
for whom, therefore, of necessity provision must
be made for their protection and welfare. Both
common humanity and considerations of law and
order require the State to do so. To abide by the
constitutional standards recognised by well
accepted principle, it is incumbent upon the
State when assigning women and children to
these establishments, euphemistically described
as “Care Homes”, to provide at least the
minimum conditions ensuring human dignity.
What we see before us in the instant case is a
crowded hovel, in which a large number of human
beings have been thrown together, compelled to
subsist in conditions of animal survival, conditions
which blatantly deny their basic humanity. How else
shall we describe an establishment where women
are detained in miserable conditions, compelling
most of them to sleep on broken floors, in damp and
dank conditions, with no covering whatever to
protect them from the chill wind and near freezing
temperatures of the north Indian winter, who are fed
a wretched health-denying diet, are denied the basic
amenities of convenient toilets and a private bathing
place, who, if they complain, are beaten up, and
although attacked by disease and illness are unable
to find timely medical relief. It is clear that the
Welfare Department of the State Government of
85
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
Bihar views its responsibilities in regard to these
women with a lightness which ill befits its existence
and the public funds appropriated to it. The name of
“Care Home” given to these establishments is an
ironic misnomer. The primitive conditions in which
the inmates are compelled to live shock the
conscience.”
[Emphasis supplied]
Thus, the exclusion of women from OCIs, or failure
to transfer them despite being eligible for transfer
from closed prisons to OCIs, amounts to blatant
gender discrimination, violative of Articles 14 and
15(1) of the Constitution of India, and also infringes
upon their right to live with dignity as guaranteed
under Article 21.
54. It must be noted that Article 15(3) of the
Constitution of India enjoins the State to make
special provisions for women. This mandate
necessarily extends to ensuring access for women to
OCIs through integration of existing facilities
wherever feasible, timely identification and transfer
86
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
of eligible women prisoners, and creation of dedicated
facilities for women wherever integration is not
possible, so that they are not excluded from the
rehabilitative framework of OCIs. The experiences of
States such as Rajasthan and Bihar, where
integrated OCIs house both men and women,
demonstrate that concerns of security or
management cannot be treated as insurmountable
barriers. Denial of access to OCIs deprives women
prisoners of equal opportunity for rehabilitation and
cannot be sustained in a const itutional order
committed to equality, dignity and the transformative
promise of justice. Immediate and effective corrective
measures are, therefore, imperative in this regard.
C. Strict Eligibility Criteria and Inadequate
Rehabilitative Avenues within OCIs
55. The qualitative data reveals that stringent and
rigid eligibility criteria continue to operate as
87
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
substantial barriers to access Open Correctional
Institutions. In several States, prisoners are required
to spend between four to twelve years in closed
prisons before being considered for transfer, with the
period extending up to twenty-one years in Gujarat.
The average age of OCI inmates predominantly falling
between thirty-five to fifty years indicates that access
is often delayed to a stage where the reformative and
reintegrative potential stands significantly diluted.
56. There is also wide divergence in operational
models across States. While some States /Union
Territory
20 permit OCI members to engage in
community-based employment, allowing them to
leave the OCI premises during the day for work and
return at a designated time , with minimal
supervision and to live with their families, other
20
Assam, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra,
Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and NCT of Delhi.
88
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
States
21 restrict inmates largely to work within the
confines of OCI premises, predominantly in
agriculture or allied activities. Experience, reinforced
by reformative penology, demonstrates that
meaningful engagement with the community, access
to diversified forms of employment, and exposure to
varied vocational opportunities are far more
conducive to genuine rehabilitation. Reformation
does not take root in isolation; it matures through
measured and responsible interaction with the
disciplines, expectations and shared obligations of
ordinary social life.
57. Another disturbing feature is that a large
number of OCIs continue to function, in substance,
as labour camps, with inmates engaged
predominantly in repetitive manual or agricultural
21
States of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Odisha,
Telangana, Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand.
89
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
work, without meaningful avenues for skill
development, personal advancement or economic
sustenance. Such an approach risks reducing Open
Correctional Institutions to functional labour camps,
rather than institutions of reformation and
reintegration. Reformation cannot be achieved
through toil alone; it must be accompanied by
structured opportunities that equip prisoners with
skills relevant to contemporary social and economic
realities. States and Union Territories are, therefore,
under a constitutional obligation to develop and
implement skill augmentation, vocational education
and apprenticeship programmes for OCI inmates, so
that the period spent in open conditions becomes a
genuine bridge to employability, self-reliance and
dignified reintegration into society, consistent with
the reformative ethos of our criminal justice system
90
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
and the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
58. Equally, family life and social integration
remain severely constrained in many States. Several
States do not permit marriage, cohabitation or
residence of family members with OCI inmates, and
in most States, families and children are not allowed
to reside within OCIs. This erosion of familial ties
undermines the rehabilitative purpose of OCIs, as
reintegration into society is intrinsically linked with
preservation of family bonds. The problem is
compounded by wide disparities in wages,
rudimentary healthcare facilities, uneven access to
education and vocational training, and rigid
disciplinary regimes that mandate reversion to closed
prisons for slightest abberations, often without the
possibility of return. Collectively, these deficiencies
weaken the reformative potential of OCIs and call for
91
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
urgent institutional reform to align their functioning
with constitutional principles of dignity, equality and
rehabilitation.
59. These deficiencies persist despite the existence
of a comprehensive normative framework at the
national level. The Model Prison Manual, 2016 and
the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act,
2023 contain detailed provisions relating to
prisoners’ healthcare, mental health, education,
vocational training, skill development, recreation and
social reintegration. These instruments encapsulate
contemporary penological thought and give
structured expression to the reformative philosophy
consistently endorsed by this Court. Yet, the material
on record demonstrates that these standards remain
largely unimplemented in practice.
60. Regrettably, the material on record also reveals
that the spirit and substance of these model
92
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
frameworks have not been translated into practice in
large parts of the country. While the Union of India
has formulated these model instruments as guiding
frameworks, the constitutional and legislative
competence in respect of “prisons and persons
detained therein” vests in the States and Union
Territories, which bear the primary responsibility for
their adoption and effective implementation. Failure
to give effect to these frameworks does not merely
reflect administrative apathy, but results in a
substantive erosion of the constitutional guarantee
under Article 21, which mandates that incarceration
shall not extinguish the right to live with dignity or
the opportunity for reformation.
61. These findings collectively indicate that in many
instances OCIs have not fully matured into centres of
transformation, but continue to function as
marginally relaxed extensions of custodial
93
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
confinement. There is, therefore, an urgent need to
reorient eligibility criteria towards reformative
indicators and to substantially strengthen
rehabilitative infrastructure within OCIs, so that they
operate as constitutionally compliant institutions of
correction, dignity and social reintegration.
D. Lack of Uniformity and the Need for Common
Minimum Standards for Governance and
Management of OCIs across States and Union
Territories
62. A thorough analysis of the material available on
record reveals stark lack of uniformity among States
and Union Territories in eligibility norms, duration of
prior incarceration, nature of work, wages,
healthcare, education, vocational training, family
integration, banking access and disciplinary
measures governing OCIs. Such divergence results in
arbitrariness and unequal access to reformative
94
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
opportunities, depending solely upon the State in
which a prisoner is confined.
63. While the subject of “prisons and persons
detained therein” falls within the legislative domain
of the States, prisoners across the country are
equally entitled to the constitutional guarantees of
dignity, equality and rehabilitation. The Model Prison
Manual, 2016 and the Model Prisons and
Correctional Services Act, 2023 reflect an attempt to
promote uniform reformative standards; however,
their fragmented and uneven adoption has led to
inconsistent outcomes.
64. The wide disparities highlighted in the
preceding paras underscore the pressing necessity
for the formulation of Common Minimum
Standards governing the administration and
management of OCIs. Such standards are essential
to ensure baseline uniformity in living conditions,
95
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
access to rehabilitative programmes and procedural
safeguards, while still allowing States flexibility in
implementation.
65. In the absence of such standards, the
reformative promise of OCIs stands diluted and
constitutional guarantees remain unevenly realised
across the country. The formulation of Common
Minimum Standards is, therefore, imperative to
ensure that OCIs across the country function as
genuine instruments of rehabilitation, dignity and
social reintegration, consistent with the
constitutional vision and the settled jurisprudence of
this Court. At the same time, we are conscious of the
fact that such standards cannot be laid down in a
vacuum and must necessarily evolve through a
consultative and participatory process involving all
relevant stakeholders, so as to balance national
uniformity with administrative feasibility. In this
96
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
backdrop, the issuance of appropriate and necessary
directions becomes imperative to facilitate the
development, adoption and effective enforcement of
such standards.
E. Cost-Effectiveness of OCIs vis-à-vis Closed
Prisons and the Imperative for Expansion
66. A crucial dimension of evaluating the viability
and sustainability of OCIs lies in assessing their cost-
effectiveness in comparison to conventional closed
prisons. In this context, the data emerging from the
comparative study
22 of Jaipur Central Jail (closed
prison) and Sanganer Open Camp (open prison) in
Rajasthan reveals a stark and compelling case for the
economic superiority of OCIs. The study indicates
that while Jaipur Central Jail houses approximately
2,200 prisoners with a working staff strength of 339,
22
Study titled “The Open Prisons of Rajasthan” published by Rajasthan
State Legal Services Authority.
97
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
Sanganer Open Camp accommodates about 400
prisoners with merely 5 staff members. This
translates into a prisoner-staff ratio of 6:1 in closed
prisons, as against an extraordinary 80:1 in open
prisons, underscoring the fundamentally different
governance models, with open prisons being
premised on self-regulation and minimal custodial
supervision.
67. From a cost perspective, the disparity is even
more pronounced. The total monthly expenditure for
the management of Jaipur Central Jail stands at
approximately Rs.1.56 crores, whereas Sanganer
Open Camp operates at a modest cost of Rs.2 lakhs
per month. Consequently, the per capita monthly
cost per prisoner is Rs.7,094/- in the closed prison
as against merely Rs.500/- in the open prison. On an
annual scale, Jaipur Central Jail incurs an
expenditure of around Rs.18.72 crores, compared to
98
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
only Rs.24 lakhs for Sanganer Open Camp, making
closed prisons nearly 78 times more expensive than
open prisons. Even staff salary expenditure alone in
Jaipur Central Jail is about 60 times higher than that
of Sanganer Open Camp, reflecting the recurring
heavy fiscal burden imposed by traditional models of
custodial.
68. A critical factor contributing to this cost
efficiency is that prisoners in open prisons are largely
self-sustaining. Unlike closed prisons, where the
State bears expenses towards food, water, electricity,
medical care and other daily necessities, inmates in
open prisons earn their livelihood and provide for
themselves and often their families. As a result,
expenditure heads such as food, utilities, medicines
and prisoner wages are virtually immaterial in the
budget of open prisons, thereby drastically reducing
recurring State expenditure. This model not only
99
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
reduces fiscal stress but also promotes financial
independence, responsibility and social reintegration
among prisoners.
69. Additionally, open prisons entail significantly
lower infrastructural and capital costs. They do not
require large tracts of land, high-security walls, or
expensive construction. Minimal housing space,
often integrated within agricultural farms or small
residential clusters, is sufficient. Several open
prisons function within the premises of existing
district jails or on adjacent land, eliminating the need
for separate high-cost infrastructure. This makes the
establishment of new OCIs economically viable even
for resource-constrained States.
70. We are further informed that in the State of
Rajasthan, certain open prisons operate on a model
wherein the State provides only the land, and
prisoners housed in such facilities construct their
100
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
own residential units. This arrangement
substantially reduces capital expenditure on
infrastructure and further enhances the cost -
effectiveness of the open prison model, as it obviates
the need for extensive construction, maintenance
and security-related outlays ordinarily associated
with closed prisons. The practice also reflects a high
degree of inmate self-sufficiency and community-
based living, which are characteristic features of
open correctional systems. At the same time, this
Court considers it necessary to clarify that the
responsibility for ensuring the availability of basic
and dignified living infrastructure to the prisoners
unquestionably rests with the State. While innovative
and cost-efficient models may be explored, the
provision of minimum housing standards consistent
with human dignity under Article 21 cannot be
abdicated or transferred entirely onto prisoners.
101
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
71. After reserving judgment, this Court considered
it necessary to obtain precise and updated fiscal data
so as to objectively assess the comparative cost
structures of closed prisons and OCIs. Accordingly,
the learned amicus curiae was requested to
requisition and place on record detailed statistics,
particularly from the State of Rajasthan, whose open
prison model has repeatedly been cited as illustrative
of best practices. Pursuant thereto, a communication
dated 10
th February, 2026 forwarded by the
Directorate General of Prisons, Rajasthan (Year
2024-2025) has been placed on record. The data
reveals that Rajasthan presently operates 105 closed
prisons with an average daily population of 22,476
inmates, incurring a total annual expenditure of
Rs.2,73,29,52,888/- (Rupees Two Hundred Seventy
Three Crores Twenty Nine Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand
Eight Hundred and Eighty Eight only) which
102
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
translates to a per-prisoner per-day expenditure of
Rs.333.12/-. In contrast, 52 open prisons house an
average daily population of 1,285 inmates, with a
total annual expenditure of Rs.2,32,76,112/-,
resulting in a per-prisoner per-day expenditure of
only Rs.49.60/-. This disparity is striking. The
statistics further demonstrate that expenditure
heads which constitute a substantial recurring
burden in closed prisons, such as food and cooking,
clothing and bedding, medical treatment, utilities
and custodial administration, are either drastically
reduced or rendered largely redundant in open
prisons owing to their self -sustaining and
community-oriented structure. These official
statistics, requisitioned specifically for the present
proceedings, provide concrete empirical support for
the proposition that OCIs are not only aligned with
constitutional and reformative principles, but also
103
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
represent a fiscally rational and administratively
sustainable correctional model.
72. Viewed holistically, the data establishes that
OCIs are not merely a humane and rehabilitative
alternative but also a financially rational correctional
strategy. The massive cost differentials, coupled with
benefits such as reduced overcrowding, lower staffing
requirements, and enhanced prisoner self -
sufficiency, make a strong constitutional and policy
case for the systematic expansion of open
correctional infrastructure across the country.
Investment in OCIs aligns with the principles of
efficient governance, fiscal prudence, and
transformative justice, ensuring that correctional
policy advances both economic sustainability and the
rehabilitative objectives of the criminal justice
system.
104
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
IX. OPERATIVE DIRECTIONS
73. In view of the foregoing analysis, and in order to
ensure that OCIs across the Country can be made
meaningful and effective institutions so as to fulfil the
constitutional, reformative and rehabilitative
mandate, this Court considers it necessary to issue
certain directions. The directions that follow are
structured under the respective heads of
consideration examined hereinabove, as well as
certain ancillary and consequential aspects that are
necessary for the effective operationalisation of the
reformative framework analysed in detail and
represent a concise distillation of the conclusions
arrived at in the preceding paras. They are being
issued to give concrete and enforceable effect to the
constitutional principles, jurisprudential
foundations, empirical findings and statutory
obligations already discussed, and to secure timely
105
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
and uniform implementation of the necessary
corrective measures by the Union of India, States and
Union Territories, so that OCIs operate as effective
instruments of dignity, equality, rehabilitation and
social reintegration within the criminal justice
system.
A. Under-utilisation of Existing OCI Facilities and
Absence of OCIs in Several States and Union
Territories
(i) The States of Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh,
Goa, Haryana, Jharkhand, Manipur, Mizoram,
Nagaland, Sikkim and Telangana, which
presently do not have any functioning OCIs,
shall, as a first step, undertake an assessment
of the feasibility and necessity for establishing
OCIs within their respective jurisdictions. Upon
such assessment, the said States shall develop
106
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
a protocol for the establishment of OCIs and/or
open and semi-open barracks.
a. The protocol shall, inter alia, address issues
relating to land allocation, extent of land,
infrastructure development, construction,
staffing, security arrangements and operational
modalities. Where the establishment of
standalone OCIs is found to be infeasible for
valid and recorded reasons, the concerned
States shall be duty-bound to create open
and/or semi-open barracks within existing
closed prisons situated within their territorial
jurisdiction, so as to ensure that prisoners are
not denied access to reformative correctional
facilities.
b. The said protocol shall be placed before the
Monitoring Committee constituted in each State
107
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
under Direction F within a period of three
months from the date of this judgment.
(ii) Noting that almost all States as well as NCT of
Delhi have reported substantial under -
utilisation of existing OCI facilities and open
barracks within closed prisons, each State as
well as NCT of Delhi shall: -
a. Develop a time-bound protocol for filling up
existing vacancies in OCIs and open barracks;
b. Submit the said protocol before the Monitoring
Committee constituted in each State and Union
Territory under Direction F within a period of
three months from the date of this judgment;
and
c. Ensure that the identified vacancies are filled
within a further period of two months
thereafter, subject to eligibility and security
considerations. The compliance report shall be
108
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
placed before the Monitoring Committee
constituted under Direction F, within one
month thereafter.
(iii) In respect of Union Territories lacking OCI
facilities, namely Andaman and Nicobar
Islands; Chandigarh; Dadra & Nagar Haveli and
Daman & Diu; Jammu and Kashmir; Ladakh;
Lakshadweep; and Puducherry, the Union of
India/the elected Government of the Union
Territory (as the case may be), shall: -
a. Examine the feasibility of establishing OCIs
within the concerned Union Territory or in the
alternative, evolve a mechanism for transferring
eligible prisoners to appropriate and proximate
OCIs in neighbouring States;
b. In any event, and irrespective of the feasibility
of establishing standalone OCIs, the Union of
India/the elected Government of the Union
109
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
Territory (as the case may be), shall be duty-
bound to create open and/or semi -open
barracks within existing closed prisons situated
within the jurisdiction of the concerned Union
Territory, wherever feasible, so as to provide
access of reformative correctional facilities to
eligible prisoners; and
c. A status report in this regard shall be submitted
before the Monitoring Committee constituted
under Direction F within three months.
(iv) The Monitoring Committee constituted under
Direction F shall be duty-bound to oversee,
facilitate and ensure the faithful, effective and
timely implementation of the protocols so
framed by the States and Union Territories.
110
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
B. Exclusion and Under-representation of Women
Prisoners from OCIs
(i) All States and Union Territories shall develop a
protocol for restructuring existing OCIs and/or
open barracks so as to allocate adequate
capacity for women prisoners. The protocol
shall be submitted before the Monitoring
Committee constituted in each State and Union
Territory under Direction F within three
months from the date of this judgment.
(ii) In States/Union Territories where OCIs are
already integrated and women are legally
permitted to be housed in OCIs or open
barracks, the concerned States/Union Territory
shall submit before the Monitoring Committee
constituted in each State and Union Territory
under Direction F within one month thereafter,
a protocol for identification and timely transfer
111
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
of eligible women prisoners, and for filling up
existing vacancies earmarked for women.
(iii) Wherever integration or cohabitation within
existing OCIs is not feasible due to security or
other legitimate concerns, the States and Union
Territories shall take immediate steps to create
suitable and dedicated OCI facilities and open
barracks within closed prisons for women, so as
to ensure that women prisoners are not denied
access to reformative institutions.
(iv) Security concerns shall generally not be made a
ground to deny women prisoners access to OCI
facilities and open barracks. States/Union
Territories are directed to evolve gender -
sensitive and security-conscious mechanisms
to facilitate such access, consistent with
Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of
India.
112
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
(v) All States and Union Territories shall, within a
period of three months from the date of this
judgment, review and amend, as may be
necessary, any existing rules, notifications or
executive instructions governing OCIs and open
barracks that directly or indirectly exclude
women prisoners from eligibility for transfer,
and shall place a compliance report before the
Monitoring Committee constituted under
Direction F, within one month thereafter.
(vi) The Monitoring Committee constituted under
Direction F shall be duty-bound to oversee,
facilitate and ensure the faithful, effective and
timely implementation of the protocols so
framed by the States and Union Territories.
113
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
C. Strict Eligibility Criteria and Inadequate
Rehabilitative Avenues within OCIs
(i) All States and Union Territories shall revisit and
rationalise eligibility criteria for transfer of
prisoners from closed prisons to OCIs, ensuring
that such criteria are based primarily on the
nature and classification of offences,
demonstrated reformative potential,
institutional conduct and readiness for social
reintegration, rather than rigid or unduly long
periods of incarceration in closed prisons.
Individualised assessments shall be undertaken
through transparent and reasoned procedure,
with recorded justification for acceptance or
rejection.
(ii) All States and Union Territories shall ensure
that OCIs do not function merely as labour
camps or spaces of custodial convenience, but
114
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
as institutions of structured rehabilitation and
transition to liberty. To this end, they shall: -
a. Adopt and adapt best practices from States
such as Maharashtra, Kerala, and Rajasthan,
where OCIs have demonstrated effective
rehabilitative outcomes, including models of
community-based employment, family
integration and diversified vocational training.
b. Develop, implement and periodically update
structured skill augmentation, vocational
training, apprenticeship and certification
programmes, aligned with contemporary
employment opportunities;
c. Facilitate community-based employment and
external work opportunities, wherever feasible,
with minimal, proportionate and non-intrusive
supervision, so as to promote responsibility,
trust and social reintegration;
115
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
d. Ensure fair, equitable and non-discriminatory
wages, linked to the nature of work and
prevailing minimum wage norms . They shall
guarantee timely access to healthcare, banking
facilities, education, digital literacy and
meaningful vocational training within the OCIs;
e. Enable access to formal education, distance
learning and skill certification, including
extensive collaboration with recognised
educational institutions, Industrial Training
Institutions (ITIs), and industry partners
(public/private); and
f. Promote family integration and social support
systems, including visitation, home leave and,
wherever feasible, cohabitation, consistent with
security considerations.
(iii) Disciplinary mechanisms within OCIs shall be
reform-oriented and proportionate, and
116
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
reversion to closed prisons shall not be
employed as a default punitive response, except
where strictly warranted.
(iv) All States and Union Territories shall put in
place institutional grievance redressal
mechanisms within OCIs, enabling inmates to
raise concerns relating to work conditions,
wages, healthcare, discipline or access to
facilities, and shall ensure that such grievances
are addressed in a timely, fair and transparent
manner.
(v) All States and Union Territories shall within
three months from the date of this judgment,
undertake necessary amendments,
modifications or revisions of the existing rules,
regulations, executive instructions or
administrative frameworks governing OCIs, as
may be required, in order to give full effect to the
117
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
directions issued under this head and shall
place a compliance report before the Monitoring
Committee constituted under Direction F,
within 1 month thereafter.
(vi) All States and Union Territories shall, for the
purpose of implementation of Direction C(ii),
prepare comprehensive and time-bound action
plans, clearly indicating timelines, budgetary
allocations, institutional responsibilities and
capacity targets. The action plans so prepared
shall be placed on record before the Monitoring
Committee constituted in each State and Union
Territory under Direction F, within a period of
three months from the date of this judgment,
which in turn shall ensure faithful, effective and
timely implementation of the said action plans.
118
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
D. Lack of Uniformity and the Need for Common
Minimum Standards for Governance and
Management of OCIs across States and Union
Territories
(i) Recognising the absence of uniformity in
governance, eligibility norms, rehabilitative
facilities and management of OCIs, and the
need for nationally consistent Common
Minimum Standards , this Court directs the
constitution of a High-Powered Committee for
Reform and Governance of Open
Correctional Institutions
23
with the following
composition: -
a. Executive Chairperson: Hon’ble Mr. Justice
S. Ravindra Bhat, Judge (Retd.), Supreme
Court of India.
23
Hereinafter, being referred to as the “High-Powered Committee”.
119
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
b. Member Secretary: Officer/Member of the
National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), to be
nominated by the Member Secretary, NALSA.
c. Members:
• Home Secretary, Union of India (or his nominee
not below the rank of Additional Secretary); and
• Home Secretaries of all States and Union
Territories (or their nominees not below the
rank of Additional Secretary);
• Deputy Inspector General (Correctional
Administration), Research and Correctional
Administration Division, Bureau of Police
Research and Development (BPR&D);
• Joint Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment;
• Joint Secretary, Ministry of Skill Development
and Entrepreneurship; and
120
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
• Two Directors General of Prisons and
Correctional Services from States, to be
identified by the Hon’ble Executive Chairperson
on a rotational basis.
(ii) The mandate of the High-Powered Committee
shall include: -
a. Formulation of Common Minimum Standards
for the governance, administration and
management of OCIs, including eligibility
criteria, living conditions, wages, healthcare,
education, vocational training, family
integration and disciplinary safeguards;
b. Harmonisation of correctional practices
prevailing across States and Union Territories
with constitutional mandate, the jurisprudence
of this Court, and internationally accepted best
practices;
121
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
c. Identification of systemic gaps, inconsistencies
and barriers in the existing rules/frameworks
governing OCIs across States and Union
Territories, and recommending corrective
legislative, administrative and policy measures;
d. Recommendation of Standardised Eligibility
Assessment Protocols based on the nature and
classification of offences, demonstrated
reformative potential, institutional conduct and
readiness for social reintegration, rather than
rigid or unduly long periods of incarceration in
closed prisons;
e. Formulation of enforceable guidelines to ensure
gender-sensitive, inclusive and non -
discriminatory access to OCIs, including
provisions for women prisoners, transgenders
and other vulnerable categories;
122
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
f. Suggesting institutional arrangements for
capacity-building and training of prison officials
involved in the management of OCIs;
g. Recommending mechanisms for periodic
monitoring, data collection, evaluation and
audit of the functioning of OCIs including
capacity utilisation, rehabilitative outcomes
and compliance with prescribed standards; and
h. Recommending measures to strengthen inter -
agency coordination, including between prison
departments, legal services authorities, social
welfare departments, and skill development
agencies.
(iii) Administrative and Logistical Arrangements for
the High-Powered Committee shall be as
follows: -
a. The High-Powered Committee shall be provided
with all necessary secretarial, technical and
123
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
administrative support to enable the effective
discharge of its mandate. For this purpose, the
National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) shall
act as the nodal agency and shall designate a
suitable officer, to function as the Registrar-
cum-Nodal Officer of the High-Powered
Committee.
b. The Registrar-cum-Nodal Officer shall be
assisted by such staff as may be required,
including at least one Personal Assistant, one
administrative assistant, one Law Clerk, and
supporting staff, to be deputed by NALSA.
c. The High-Powered Committee shall be free to
conduct its sittings at New Delhi or at such
other place or places as may be deemed
appropriate by the Hon’ble Executive
Chairperson. The concerned State Government
or Union Territory, as the case may be, shall
124
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
ensure that suitable arrangements for the
sittings of the High-Powered Committee are
made expeditiously whenever meetings are held
outside New Delhi.
d. The Member Secretary, National Legal Services
Authority (NALSA), shall arrange for fully
furnished and well-equipped office space for the
High-Powered Committee at the NALSA Office,
B-Block, Ground Floor, Administrative
Buildings Complex, Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi – 110001, as and when required. The
said office shall be provided with adequate
infrastructure, including video-conferencing
facilities, secure internet connectivity, record-
keeping systems and all necessary logistical
support to ensure t he efficient and
uninterrupted functioning of the High-Powered
Committee.
125
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
e. The High-Powered Committee shall be at liberty
to evolve its own modalities and procedure for
the conduct of its meetings and business,
including the manner of consultation with
stakeholders, calling for data, and seeking
expert assistance, consistent with its mandate.
f. The Union of India, through the Ministry of
Home Affairs, shall bear all financial and
logistical requirements of the High-Powered
Committee, including expenditure towards
office infrastructure, staff support, travel,
accommodation, and operational expenses.
g. The Hon’ble Chairperson of the High-Powered
Committee shall be entitled to an honorarium of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) per
month, along with reimbursement of actual
travel and incidental expenses incurred in
connection with the discharge of official duties.
126
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
Any expert, legal assistance or otherwise,
engaged by the High-Powered Committee shall
also be paid appropriate honorarium, to be
determined by the Hon’ble Executive
Chairperson.
h. All logistical and administrative arrangements
necessary for the functioning of the High -
Powered Committee shall be completed within
two weeks from the date of the judgment.
(iv) The first meeting of the High -Powered
Committee shall be convened within a period of
two weeks from the completion of the aforesaid
logistical and administrative arrangements.
(v) The High-Powered Committee shall submit a
comprehensive report containing its
recommendations, along with the draft
Common Minimum Standards, before this
127
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
Court preferably within a period of six months
from the date of its first meeting.
E. Expansion of Open Correctional Infrastructure
(i) All States and Union Territories shall, in
addition to optimally utilising existing OCIs,
take proactive and time-bound steps to expand
open correctional infrastructure by (a)
establishing new OCIs, and (b) creating open
and semi-open barracks within existing closed
prisons, wherever feasible.
(ii) Each State and Union Territory through its
Prisons and Correctional Services Department
shall undertake a comprehensive assessment of
its prison infrastructure within a period of three
months from the date of this judgment to: -
a. identify locations suitable for the establishment
of new OCIs; and
128
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
b. identify closed prisons where open or semi-open
barracks can be created without compromising
safety or security.
(iii) Upon completion of the aforesaid assessment,
each State and Union Territory shall prepare
separate, time-bound action plans clearly
indicating timelines, budgetary provisions and
capacity targets for: -
a. the establishment of new OCIs and/or
expansion of existing OCIs; and
b. the creation and operationalisation of open and
semi-open barracks within closed prisons.
(iv) The action plans prepared in this regard shall
clearly indicate timelines, budgetary provisions
and capacity targets, and shall be placed before
the Monitoring Committee constituted in each
State and Union Territory under Direction F,
within a period of three months from the date
129
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
of this judgment, which in turn shall ensure
faithful, effective and timely implementation of
the said action plans.
F. Compliance and Monitoring
It is evident that the directions issued by this Court
vide order dated 8
th May, 2018 in In Re: Inhuman
Conditions in 1382 Prisons have not, thus far,
yielded any meaningful or positive results. In order to
ensure that the present judgment does not suffer the
same fate, it is imperative to exhort the High Courts
to assume an active role in overseeing and ensuring
effective implementation of the directions issued
herein. With the aforesaid objective in view, we
proceed to issue the following directions: -
(i) For ongoing compliance and monitoring, all the
High Courts are directed to register a suo motu
writ petition, as a continuing mandamus, for
the purpose of monitoring compliance with the
130
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
present judgment within their respective
jurisdictions, particularly with respect to the
establishment, functioning and expansion of
OCIs.
(ii) To facilitate effective implementation at the
executive level, every State and Union Territory
shall constitute a Monitoring Committee for the
Management of OCIs, to be headed by the
Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services
Authority or his nominee (including a former
Judge of the High Court), with the following
members: -
a. Home Secretary of the State/Union Territory (or
his nominee not below the rank of Additional
Secretary); and
b. A senior officer of the Prisons Department not
below the rank of Deputy Inspector General, to
131
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
be nominated by the Home Department of the
State or Union Territory.
(iii) Where the Chairperson of the Monitoring
Committee is a nominee of the Executive
Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority,
such nominee shall be entitled to appropriate
remuneration and logistical support, as may be
determined by the Executive Chairman, State
Legal Services Authority in consultation with
the State Government.
(iv) The State Monitoring Committees shall be
responsible for: -
a. Ensuring compliance with the directions issued
by this Court;
b. Overseeing the utilisation, functioning and
expansion of OCIs;
132
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
c. Facilitating the timely identification and
transfer of eligible prisoners from closed prisons
to OCIs; and
d. Periodically reviewing progress and addressing
systemic impediments in the implementation of
the directions issued by this Court.
(v) Each State and Union Territory shall constitute
the aforesaid Committee within a period of four
weeks from the date of this judgment.
(vi) The State Committees shall submit status
reports to the concerned High Court on regular
quarterly intervals, detailing the steps taken
towards compliance with the directions issued
herein, the utilisation and expansion of OCIs,
and any difficulties encountered in
implementation of the directions issued by this
Court. The first such status report shall be
133
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
placed on record before the concerned High
Court on or before 21
st
August, 2026.
(vii) The High Courts, through their respective
Registrar General, shall compile and forward
consolidated report to this Court once every
year, summarising the compliance status of
States and Union Territories, progress achieved,
best practices identified, and persistent gaps
requiring policy or executive intervention. The
first such consolidated annual report shall be
placed on record before this Court on or before
31
st
March, 2027.
This multi-tiered monitoring mechanism ensures
institutional accountability, continuous judicial
oversight, and effective translation of constitutional
directives into operational outcomes, thereby
preventing stagnation in implementation and
134
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
reinforcing the transformative objectives of this
judgment.
X. CONCLUSION
74. The aforesaid directions are issued to ensure
that the constitutional mandate of equality, non-
discrimination and the right to live with dignity, as
guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the
Constitution of India, is meaningfully realised in the
administration of prisons across the country. They
seek to give concrete effect to the philosophy that
underlies our criminal justice system and to ensure
that OCIs function as effective instruments of
rehabilitation, reformation and social reintegration,
in accordance with the constitutional vision, the
settled jurisprudence of this Court, and the domestic
and international normative frameworks governing
incarceration.
135
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
75. Before parting, this Court considers it is
apposite to reiterate that the enduring strength of a
constitutional democracy lies not in the severity of its
punishments, but in its commitment to restore
dignity, hope and opportunity even to those who have
transgressed the law. Prisoners do not cease to be
bearers of constitutional rights upon incarceration,
and the State’s obligation to treat them with
humanity, fairness and compassion stands
heightened where liberty is lawfully curtailed. OCIs
embody this constitutional promise by recognising
that trust, responsibility and graded liberty are
essential for meaningful reform.
76. The effectiveness of the directions issued herein
will ultimately depend upon their faithful and timely
implementation by the Union of India, States and
Union Territories. The constitutional vision of
rehabilitation and reintegration cannot be reduced to
136
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
policy declarations or paper compliances. It must find
expression in lived realities within prison walls,
through inclusive access, humane conditions,
gender-sensitive practices, meaningful rehabilitative
avenues and uniform minimum standards. It is ,
therefore, imperative that all stakeholders act with
seriousness, sensitivity and a shared sense of
constitutional responsibility, so that the reformative
ideal of punishment is not rendered illusory, but
stands realised as an enduring and enforceable
feature of prison administration in India.
77. The Registry shall forward one copy each of this
judgment to the following: -
i. All the High Courts;
ii. All State Governments and Union Territories
through their respective Chief Secretaries;
iii. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India;
iv. Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, Government of India;
v. Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice,
Government of India;
137
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
vi. Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child
Development, Government of India;
vii. Director General/Inspector General of Prisons
of all States and Union Territories;
viii. National Legal Services Authority (NALSA);
ix. Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Judge
(Retd.), Supreme Court of India; Executive
Chairperson of the High-Powered Committee.
78. This Court places on record its sincere
appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by
learned Senior Advocate, Mr. K. Parameshwar
(amicus curiae) and learned Senior Advocate, Mr.
Vijay Hansaria (amicus curiae) as well as Ms. Rashmi
Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the
National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). Their
meticulous research, comprehensive written
submissions, thoughtful analysis and sustained
assistance have significantly aided this Court in the
effective adjudication of the complex and
multifaceted issues arising in the present
proceedings.
138
WRIT PETITION (C) NO(S). 1082 OF 2020
79. List on 1
st
September, 2026 for the
consideration of the status report submitted by the
High-Powered Committee containing its
recommendations and draft Common Minimum
Standards.
80. List on 31
st
March, 2027 for consideration of
the consolidated annual reports submitted by the
High Courts through their respective Registrar s
General, in terms of Direction F(vi) above, reflecting
the compliance status of the States and Union
Territories and the progress made in implementation
of the present judgment.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH )
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 26, 2026.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has issued crucial directives for Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) and comprehensive prison reform, significantly impacting the future of correctional services across the nation. This exhaustive ruling, now available on CaseOn, addresses the persistent challenges of overcrowding, systemic under-utilization of rehabilitative facilities, and the constitutional imperatives of prisoner dignity and social reintegration.
The core issue before the Supreme Court stemmed from a writ petition highlighting the alarming state of Indian prisons, particularly chronic overcrowding, inhuman living conditions, and the under-utilization or complete absence of Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) across many States and Union Territories. The petition also brought to light the systemic exclusion and under-representation of women prisoners in existing OCI facilities and the lack of uniformity in eligibility criteria and rehabilitative programs within these institutions. Despite previous judicial directives and model frameworks, there was a persistent failure to adopt and expand open correctional models, undermining the constitutional promise of rehabilitation and dignity for prisoners.
The Supreme Court grounded its decision in a robust framework of constitutional principles, domestic legal provisions, and international standards:
The Court's analysis was informed by comprehensive data collected by the amicus curiae, revealing significant systemic failures:
Quantitative findings showed that existing OCIs are significantly under-utilised across many States, with occupancy rates as low as 6% in Delhi and 15% in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Conversely, Bihar's functional OCI is overcrowded at 136%, and Maharashtra's open barracks operate beyond 171% capacity. Several States (Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Jharkhand, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Telangana) and most Union Territories entirely lack OCI facilities. This under-utilisation and absence directly contradict the reformative ideal and exacerbate overcrowding in closed prisons.
A deeply troubling pattern of exclusion emerged, with States like Assam, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Punjab, Telangana, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal explicitly stating that women prisoners are ineligible for transfer to OCIs. Even where eligibility exists (NCT of Delhi, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu), quantitative data shows no women have been transferred. Kerala’s women's OCI at Thiruvananthapuram has only 30% occupancy, compared to over 80% for men. This gender disparity violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution and the Bangkok Rules, reflecting administrative convenience overriding constitutional obligations.
Qualitative data revealed rigid eligibility criteria, with prisoners often required to spend between four to twelve years, and up to twenty-one years in Gujarat, in closed prisons before OCI consideration. This delays access, diluting rehabilitative potential. Many OCIs function more as 'labour camps' focused on agriculture or allied activities, rather than true reformative institutions. There's a wide disparity in wages (Rs.40-50/day in Punjab/UP vs. Rs.230-548/day in Kerala/Karnataka), inadequate healthcare facilities (often requiring reversion to closed prisons for treatment), limited educational and vocational training aligned with contemporary skills, and constrained family integration (many States prohibit family residence or cohabitation). Disciplinary measures often include reversion to closed prisons, with no possibility of return in several States, which is counter-productive to reform.
For legal professionals seeking swift insights into complex rulings like this one, CaseOn.in offers invaluable 2-minute audio briefs. These concise summaries distill the core arguments and directives, making it easier to analyze specific rulings related to prison reform and Open Correctional Institutions without delving through hundreds of pages.
A comparative study of Jaipur Central Jail (closed) and Sanganer Open Camp (open) in Rajasthan highlighted the stark economic superiority of OCIs. Closed prisons cost approximately Rs.333.12 per prisoner per day, while open prisons cost only Rs.49.60 per prisoner per day. This is due to lower staffing requirements (80:1 prisoner-staff ratio in open vs. 6:1 in closed prisons) and the self-sustaining nature of OCI inmates who earn their livelihood. The Court noted that OCIs significantly reduce fiscal stress and capital costs, often functioning within existing jail premises or on adjacent land, with prisoners even constructing their own residential units.
The Supreme Court issued detailed operative directions to ensure the constitutional mandate of dignity, equality, non-discrimination, and rehabilitation is realized:
The Court emphasized that these directions aim to ensure that constitutional values are not merely abstract ideals but are realized in the lived realities within prison walls, through inclusive access, humane conditions, gender-sensitive practices, meaningful rehabilitative avenues, and uniform minimum standards.
The judgment highlights the critical need for reform in India's correctional system, specifically focusing on Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs). It notes severe overcrowding in conventional prisons and the under-utilization or absence of OCIs, which are more cost-effective and rehabilitative. The Court identified key shortcomings, including restrictive eligibility criteria, lack of diversified vocational training, poor healthcare, and, most notably, the systemic exclusion of women prisoners. By drawing upon constitutional rights, domestic laws, and international standards, the Supreme Court has mandated a multi-tiered approach for the establishment, expansion, and effective management of OCIs, including the formation of a High-Powered Committee to formulate Common Minimum Standards and ensure compliance across all States and Union Territories.
This judgment is a crucial read for legal professionals and students for several reasons:
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, readers should consult a qualified legal professional for advice on specific legal issues. CaseOn.in is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided herein.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....