In a significant ruling on prison reform, the Supreme Court has issued a series of binding directions to States and Union Territories to strengthen and expand Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) across the country.
Hearing a writ petition filed by Suhas Chakma, the Court examined the alarming overcrowding in Indian prisons and the under-utilisation of open prisons, which are designed to promote rehabilitation rather than mere confinement.
The judgment, delivered in Writ Petition (C) No. 1082 of 2020, stresses that constitutional values do not stop at prison gates.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Enhances Accident Compensation to ₹6 Lakh for Court Employee
Background of the Case
The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, raising concerns about overcrowded prisons and inhuman living conditions. The petitioner sought systemic reforms, including permanent monitoring mechanisms to ensure that prison occupancy does not exceed sanctioned capacity.
The Court noted data from the National Crime Records Bureau’s “Prison Statistics India, 2023”, showing that prisons nationwide are operating at over 120% occupancy. In several States, occupancy exceeds 150%.
Open prisons, the Court observed, offer a humane and cost-effective alternative. In Rajasthan, for instance, the daily expenditure per inmate in a closed prison is about ₹333, compared to roughly ₹49 in an open prison.
Despite earlier judicial directions, many States either failed to establish open prisons or under-utilised existing ones.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Reinstates KSRTC Guard, Says No Termination Without Proper Inquiry and Fair
Court’s Observations
The bench emphasised that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity, even for prisoners.
Quoting earlier rulings, the Court observed, “Convicts are not, by mere reason of the conviction, denuded of all the fundamental rights which they otherwise possess.”
The Court pointed out several troubling findings:
- Open prisons constitute only a small fraction of total prisons in India.
- Many States reported occupancy as low as 6% to 36% in their open facilities.
- Several States have no open prisons at all.
- Women prisoners are either excluded or grossly under-represented in most open institutions.
The Court noted that in some States, women are not even eligible for transfer to open prisons. In others, though technically eligible, no woman inmate has actually been transferred.
“The persistent failure to meaningfully adopt and expand what is widely acknowledged as one of the most effective solutions to overcrowding reflects a troubling disconnect between constitutional mandate and executive action,” the bench remarked.
It also criticised rigid eligibility criteria that require prisoners to serve long years in closed prisons before being considered for transfer. Such rules, the Court observed, defeat the reformative purpose of open institutions.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Orders Cancellation of OBC Certificate of Gram Panchayat Pradhan
Need for Uniform Standards
The Court highlighted the lack of uniformity in governance. Wages, vocational training, healthcare access and family integration vary widely across States.
While some States allow prisoners to live with families and work outside, others restrict them to agricultural labour within prison premises. In several States, education and modern skill training are either minimal or absent.
Referring to international standards, including the Nelson Mandela Rules, the Court underlined that open prisons rely on self-discipline rather than high walls and are conducive to rehabilitation.
The Union Government has already circulated the Model Prison Manual, 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023. However, since prisons fall under the State List, implementation depends on individual States.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Partly Allows Discharge Plea in 498A Case, Drops Attempt to Homicide Charge
Operative Directions
After reviewing data, reports and responses from States, the Court issued structured directions under multiple heads:
1. Expansion of Open Correctional Institutions
States and Union Territories have been directed to establish and expand OCIs in a time-bound manner, particularly in regions with severe overcrowding.
2. Utilisation of Existing Facilities
Where open prisons already exist but remain under-utilised, States must revise eligibility criteria and adopt measures to ensure optimal occupancy.
3. Inclusion of Women Prisoners
The Court directed States to ensure that women prisoners are not excluded. Separate facilities or appropriate arrangements must be created to allow their meaningful participation.
4. Common Minimum Standards
States have been asked to frame rules aligned with the Model Prison Manual, ensuring uniform minimum standards in infrastructure, wages, healthcare, education and vocational training.
5. No Reduction of Existing Open Prison Areas
The Court reiterated its earlier direction that no attempt should be made to reduce the area of functioning open prisons.
6. Compliance and Monitoring
States must submit compliance reports. The Court made it clear that failure to respond could invite personal appearance of Chief Secretaries before the Court.
Read also:- Rajasthan High Court Orders Statewide Audit of 31 Old Age Homes, Seeks Report on Facilities by Feb 15
Conclusion
Concluding the judgment, the Court reaffirmed that prisons must be instruments of reform, not spaces of neglect. Open Correctional Institutions, it held, are not experiments but constitutionally aligned tools to secure dignity, reduce overcrowding and promote reintegration.
The writ petition was disposed of with detailed directions to all States and Union Territories to implement and strengthen the open prison framework.
Case Title: Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition (C) No. 1082 of 2020
Decision Date: February 26, 2026
