On UP jails overcrowding, the Allahabad High Court has asked the Director General of Prisons for a proper affidavit, preferably in tabular form, within one month. The affidavit already on record, the Bench found, left out details on the problem and on the State’s plans to expand capacity.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court on October 27, 2026 directed the Director General of the Uttar Pradesh Prison Administration and Reform Services to file a detailed affidavit on overcrowding in the State’s jails and the steps being taken to address it, in a public interest litigation in which it was told that the prisons hold 80,326 prisoners and convicts against a capacity of 76,162 [In Re: Overcrowding In Prisons v. State of U.P. and 2 Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi passed the order in Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. 4 of 2018, after perusing an affidavit dated May 23, 2026 filed by the Senior Superintendent of Central Jail, Naini, in Prayagraj district.
The direction
The operative direction reads:
“Let a proper affidavit be filed by the Director General (DG) of the Uttar Pradesh Prison Administration and Reform Services, preferably in a tabular form, to disclose the correct current status of overcrowding, in jails, and efforts being made to address the same, within one month.”
What the Naini jail affidavit said
The affidavit accepted that overcrowding exists in the State’s jails. It put prison capacity in Uttar Pradesh at 76,162 and the number of prisoners and convicts currently confined at 80,326.
The Bench observed that the State appeared to be relying on stop-gap steps:
“Presently, temporary measures may have been adopted by processing applications for premature release and by considering release upon the payment of fines. Those may be wholly temporary measures, against increase of capacity, required.”
What the Bench found missing
On several counts, the Bench found the affidavit lacking. It recorded that neither the break-up of under-trial prisoners and convicts nor the gender-wise or age-wise distribution of inmates had been disclosed, and that “in any case, there is excess occupancy over capacity.”
As for the State’s claim that capacity is being expanded, the Court said:
“Though it has been disclosed that the capacity of the prisons is being increased and that new barracks and prisons are under construction, details of such developments have not been furnished. Thus, no details regarding the six new prisons being established has been given. Also, the stage of the individual projects, has not been disclosed. Similarly, the status of the increase in barracks has not been disclosed.”
Advocate Ankit Srivastava is assisting the Court as amicus curiae. Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, assisted by AGA-I Paritosh Kumar Malviya, appeared for the State. The matter will be heard next on December 1, 2026.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Removes 20-Year Remission Bar Added In Convicts’ Own Appeals
Why the order matters
Overcrowding affects living conditions, health and access to legal help for everyone held in a jail, and most of those confined in Indian prisons are under-trials who have not been convicted. By asking for the under-trial and convict break-up, gender and age data, and project-wise status of new prisons and barracks, the Court is seeking the information needed to judge whether the State’s plans match the scale of the problem.
The order also signals that premature release and release on payment of fines, while useful, are not a substitute for adding capacity. The Prison DG’s affidavit, due within a month, will set the stage for the next hearing on December 1.
Case Title: In Re: Overcrowding In Prisons v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case No.: Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. 4 of 2018
Bench: Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: October 27, 2026
Appearances: Ankit Srivastava, Amicus Curiae; Anoop Trivedi, AAG, assisted by Paritosh Kumar Malviya, AGA-I, for the State
![[RSS Leader Murder]Kerala HC Grants Bail to One Accused Member of PFI, Denies Bail to Two Others](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image-2024-09-16T154524.564.png?resize=420%2C345&ssl=1)
