Rs 4.59 crore has been sanctioned for Three New Open Prisons in Uttar Pradesh, but the Allahabad High Court has said it is “imperative” that the State commit to a definite time frame, both for building the facilities and for placing identified convicts in them.
Prayagraj: Told that the State had sanctioned Rs 4.59 crore for three new Open Correctional Institution (OCI) facilities, the Allahabad High Court on November 4, 2026 directed the Special Secretary, Jail Administration and Reform Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file a further affidavit setting out the agency, the construction required and the time frame for setting them up [In Re: For Establishment, Functioning and Expansion of Open Correctional Institutions in U.P. v. State of U.P.].
A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi passed the order in Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. 4 of 2026, which was registered pursuant to the Supreme Court’s February 26, 2026 order in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India (2026 INSC 198) on the expansion and effective use of open correctional institutions. Seven earlier PILs on jail conditions in the State have been tagged with it.
An assurance is not a schedule
Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi assured the Bench that the facilities would be set up without further delay. The Court, however, said an assurance was not enough:
“In the nature of the issue that has arisen before us, it is imperative that the State Authorities commit themselves to a definite time frame within which not only such facilities would be set up, but identified/eligible convicts would be placed at such facilities arising on the application of the State policy in that regard.”
When asked about the timeline, the AAG said instructions were not complete and sought short time. The Bench then directed a further affidavit disclosing the selection of agency, the constructions required, the time frame to complete them, and the efforts initiated or to be made to identify deserving convicts to be placed in the facilities immediately upon their being set up.
The sanction disclosed in the affidavit
A compliance affidavit of Special Secretary Rajendra Pensiya disclosed that Government Order No. 912 dated November 2, 2026 had been issued and the budgetary allocation made. The money is to be used to set up OCI facilities at:
- Central Prison, Fatehgarh, for 100 prisoners;
- Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, for 50 women prisoners; and
- District Jail, Gautam Buddh Nagar, for 80 prisoners.
In view of the affidavit, the Court dispensed with the Special Secretary’s personal appearance.
Months of shifting proposals
The order follows a run of hearings in which the Bench questioned the pace of reform. The State first proposed facilities at Lucknow, Azamgarh and Chitrakoot, then shifted to Azamgarh, Fatehgarh and a women’s facility at Lucknow in an affidavit of August 18, 2026, and replaced Azamgarh with Gautam Buddh Nagar in an affidavit of October 5. Its estimate, initially about Rs 90 crore, was revised to under Rs 5 crore after re-inspection showed existing buildings could be used.
On October 27, 2026, the Court had recorded that instead of providing the funds, the State had again sought time, and observed:
“Such state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue, indefinitely. Time has come for the officers of the State to explain to the Court, personally, why the smallest steps required to carry out the reform, is delayed.”
Advocate Ankit Srivastava is assisting the Court as amicus curiae, and Advocate Sudhir Mehrotra appeared for the High Court. AAG Anoop Trivedi, assisted by AGA Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, appeared for the State. The matter is listed on November 20, 2026.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Issues Contempt Notice To DG Prisons Over Stalled Open Prison Reforms
Why the order matters
Open correctional institutions let eligible convicts work and live with fewer restrictions, easing pressure on overcrowded jails and helping reintegration. A budget sanction alone does not move a single prisoner. By tying the State to a time frame for both construction and the selection of eligible convicts, including women prisoners at the proposed Lucknow facility, the Court is turning the Supreme Court’s nationwide directions into measurable steps in Uttar Pradesh.
Case Title: In Re: For Establishment, Functioning and Expansion of Open Correctional Institutions in U.P. v. State of U.P.
Case No.: Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. 4 of 2026
Bench: Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: November 4, 2026
Appearances: Ankit Srivastava, Amicus Curiae; Sudhir Mehrotra for the High Court; Anoop Trivedi, AAG, assisted by Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, AGA, for the State