Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued a series of directions aimed at ensuring the effective functioning and expansion of Open Correctional Institutions across India, holding that such facilities must serve as genuine instruments of reform and rehabilitation. The Court directed that these institutions be operationalised in every state and union territory, with structured frameworks governing eligibility, prisoner welfare, and oversight, so as to give effect to the reformative philosophy of the criminal justice system and fulfil constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity in prison administration.

The writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in 2020, raising concerns about systemic overcrowding in prisons across the country. The petition alleged that prison populations far exceeded sanctioned capacities, resulting in inhuman living conditions for inmates in violation of their rights under Article 21. The petitioner sought directions for permanent mechanisms to address overcrowding and ensure humane conditions of detention.

Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice to Centre, States Over Alleged Non-Compliance with Directions on Implementing NCAHP Act, 2021

In May 2024, the Court identified Open Correctional Institutions as a viable solution to overcrowding and appointed amicus curiae to assist. It directed circulation of questionnaires to all States and Union Territories, asked select States to share best practices, and directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to file a status report. Repeated opportunities were granted to non-compliant States to furnish the requisite information.

Based on data collected, the Court found that existing OCIs were substantially under-utilised, women prisoners were largely excluded from OCI access, and several States had no functioning OCIs at all, prompting the issuance of comprehensive directions.

Highlighting the constitutional rights of prisoners, the Court observed, "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."

On the functioning of OCIs, the Court stated that "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 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." It further observed that "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" and that "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."

The Court also took note of the significant economic advantage of OCIs over closed prisons, observing, "We have particularly taken note of the serious discrepancy or rather the serious economic advantage which the open OCIs have over closed prisons. As per the data from the State of Rajasthan which is startling in as much as for a prisoner in closed prison the state requires to spend nearly 3000 odd rupees per month while the prisoner in the OCI requires only expenditure of Rs. 50 per month."

Concluding its observations, the Court stated that "the aforesaid directions are issued to ensure that the constitutional mandate of equality and 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. This is to give concrete effect to the reformative philosophy that underlies our criminal justice system and to ensure that OCIs function as effective instruments of rehabilitation, reformation, and social reintegration."

The Court issued the following directions:

A. Under-utilisation of Existing OCI Facilities and Absence of OCIs in Several States and Union Territories

Ten States — Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Haryana, Jharkhand, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Telangana — which currently have no functioning OCIs, were directed to first assess the feasibility of establishing such institutions within their jurisdictions and thereafter develop a protocol for their establishment. Where standalone OCIs are found infeasible, these States are obligated to create open or semi-open barracks within existing closed prisons.

All States and the NCT of Delhi, where substantial under-utilisation of existing OCI facilities has been reported, were directed to develop time-bound protocols for filling existing vacancies in OCIs and open barracks, with identified vacancies to be filled within two months, subject to eligibility and security considerations.

Union Territories without OCI facilities — Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Lakshadweep and Puducherry — were directed to examine the feasibility of establishing OCIs or, alternatively, to devise mechanisms for transferring eligible prisoners to proximate OCIs in neighbouring States, while also creating open or semi-open barracks within existing closed prisons wherever feasible.

B. Exclusion and Under-representation of Women Prisoners from OCIs

All States and Union Territories were directed to develop protocols for restructuring existing OCIs and open barracks to ensure adequate capacity for women prisoners. The Court directed that security concerns shall not ordinarily be invoked to deny women prisoners access to OCI facilities, and that gender-sensitive and security-conscious mechanisms must be evolved to facilitate such access in accordance with Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.

All States and Union Territories were further directed to review and amend, within three months, any existing rules, notifications or executive instructions that directly or indirectly exclude women prisoners from eligibility for transfer to OCIs or open barracks, with a compliance report to be placed before the Monitoring Committee within one month thereafter.

C. Strict Eligibility Criteria and Inadequate Rehabilitative Avenues within OCIs

All States and Union Territories were directed to revisit and rationalise eligibility criteria for transfer of prisoners to OCIs, ensuring that such criteria are grounded in the nature of offences, demonstrated reformative potential, institutional conduct and readiness for reintegration, rather than rigid or prolonged periods of prior incarceration. Individualised assessments are to be conducted through a transparent and reasoned process, with recorded justification for each acceptance or rejection.

States and Union Territories were further directed to ensure that OCIs function as genuine institutions of structured rehabilitation rather than as labour camps, by developing and periodically updating skill augmentation, vocational training, apprenticeship and certification programmes aligned with contemporary employment opportunities. Fair and non-discriminatory wages linked to prevailing minimum wage norms, along with access to healthcare, banking, education and digital literacy, are to be guaranteed within OCIs.

Disciplinary mechanisms within OCIs were directed to be reform-oriented and proportionate, with reversion to closed prisons reserved only for circumstances where it is strictly warranted and not deployed as a default response to violations.

All States and Union Territories were also directed to establish institutional grievance redressal mechanisms within OCIs, enabling inmates to raise concerns relating to work conditions, wages, healthcare, discipline and access to facilities, with such grievances to be addressed in a timely, fair and transparent manner.

D. Lack of Uniformity and the Need for Common Minimum Standards for Governance and Management of OCIs across States and Union Territories

Noting the absence of uniformity in the governance, eligibility norms, rehabilitative facilities and management of OCIs across the country, the Court directed the constitution of a High-Powered Committee for Reform and Governance of Open Correctional Institutions, to be headed by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India. The Committee's mandate includes formulating Common Minimum Standards for the governance and management of OCIs, harmonising correctional practices with constitutional mandates and internationally accepted best practices, recommending standardised eligibility assessment protocols based on reformative potential, and framing enforceable guidelines to ensure gender-sensitive, inclusive and non-discriminatory access to OCIs for women prisoners, transgender persons and other vulnerable categories.

The High-Powered Committee was directed to submit a comprehensive report containing its recommendations and draft Common Minimum Standards before the Court, preferably within six months from the date of its first meeting.

D. Expansion of Open Correctional Infrastructure

All States and Union Territories were directed to take proactive and time-bound steps to expand open correctional infrastructure by establishing new OCIs and creating open and semi-open barracks within existing closed prisons, wherever feasible, in addition to optimally utilising existing facilities. Each State and Union Territory was directed to undertake, through its Prisons and Correctional Services Department, a comprehensive assessment of its prison infrastructure within three months from the date of the judgment, to identify suitable locations for new OCIs and closed prisons where open or semi-open barracks can be created without compromising safety or security.

E. Compliance and Monitoring

All High Courts were directed to register suo motu writ petitions as continuing mandamus proceedings for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the judgment within their respective jurisdictions, particularly in relation to the establishment, functioning and expansion of OCIs.

Also Read: Criminal Law Cannot Be Weaponised To Settle Family Property Disputes; Calcutta High Court Quashes Defamation, Intimidation Case Against Cousin

Every State and Union Territory was directed to constitute a Monitoring Committee for the Management of OCIs within four weeks from the date of the judgment, to be headed by the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority or a nominee, including a former Judge of the High Court. State Monitoring Committees were directed to submit quarterly status reports to the concerned High Court detailing compliance, utilisation and expansion of OCIs, and any difficulties encountered in implementation, with the first such report to be placed on record on or before August 21, 2026.

High Courts were directed to compile and forward consolidated annual reports to the Supreme Court summarising compliance status, progress achieved, best practices identified and persistent gaps requiring intervention, with the first such report to be placed on record on or before March 31, 2027.

Case Title: Suhas Chakma v. Union of India and Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 198

Case Number: Writ Petition (C) No. 1082 of 2020

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta