Rape, POCSO convicts not absolutely barred from open air camps: the Rajasthan High Court Full Bench has held that such prisoners are not totally ineligible for transfer, but have no automatic right to admission and must show exceptional circumstances.
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court Full Bench on October 26, 2026 held that a prisoner convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code or the POCSO Act is not totally ineligible for transfer to an open air camp under the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972, while ruling that such a prisoner has no automatic right to admission and that the competent authority must make an individualised, reasoned assessment [Gangaram v. State of Rajasthan and Others].
The Full Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Justice Sameer Jain and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar answered a reference made by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in D.B. Criminal Reference No. 1/2024, heard with D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 16575/2026 and 16577/2026. The judgment was authored by the Chief Justice. Anshuman Saxena, T.C. Swami, Pankaj Gupta, Vishram Prajapati, Jai Lodha, Govind Rawat, B.R. Choudhary, Dheeraj Singhal and Tarun Agarwal appeared for the petitioners, and Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General Rajesh Choudhary with Aman Agarwal, Gaurav Gupta and Neha Goyal appeared for the State.
How the case reached the Full Bench
Rule 3 of the 1972 Rules lists classes of prisoners who are “ordinarily” not eligible for an open air camp. Clause (d) covers convicts under a list of Indian Penal Code provisions that includes Section 376. Rule 4 separately makes a prisoner eligible only if he falls in none of the Rule 3 categories, has regularly performed his scheduled task in the jail factory or jail service, and has served one third of his substantive sentence including remission.
Division Benches of the High Court had taken two lines. In Nirbhay Singh @ Nabbu, Sandeep and Ajit Singh, it was held that Rules 3 and 4 do not absolutely prohibit such prisoners from being sent to an open air camp. In Rajendra @ Goru, Bhag Singh @ Bhagirath and Vipin @ Vinkesh @ Vika, convicts of this kind were treated as ineligible solely because of the gravity of the offence, on the reasoning that their presence would create fear in the families of other inmates and that children would not be safe.
Justice Dhand, sitting singly in Gangaram, noticed both lines, and noted that an earlier Single Bench ruling in Aasharam @ Aashu had been passed without noticing the restrictive line (the State’s special leave petition against it was dismissed on November 11, 2024). He referred the question to a larger bench. The Chief Justice constituted the Full Bench on September 26, 2026, and judgment was reserved on September 30, 2026.
The legal position
The Full Bench began with the purpose of the camps. It described the open air camp as a pre-release half-way mechanism meant to encourage good conduct, self-discipline and social readjustment, framed under clause (18) of Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India, decided on February 26, 2026 by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, which treated open correctional institutions as under-utilised and directed every State and Union Territory to revisit eligibility criteria. Quoting that direction, the Full Bench noted that it requires individualised assessments “through transparent and reasoned procedure, with recorded justification for acceptance or rejection.”
What the Full Bench said
The Court held that the whole controversy turned on the word “ordinarily” in Rule 3. Surveying Supreme Court rulings on the term, it concluded that the word signals a normal rule that leaves room for exceptions:
“The word ‘ordinarily’ does not mean ‘necessarily’ and as such, the word ‘ordinarily’ employed in Rule 3 is not mandatory and still in discretion of the concerned authority to admit the prisoner to Open Air Camp, though the case of the convict may be covered under Rule 3(d) of the Rules of 1972.”
At the same time, the Court refused to read the word as conferring unrestricted discretion, and distinguished between having no right to admission and having no right to be considered:
“Rule 3(d) creates an ordinary exclusion, but it does not totally eliminate consideration of an exceptional case. The prisoner must establish special or exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify departure from the ordinary rule, and the competent authority must record a reasoned decision on the relevant factors.”
On Article 14, the Court said it “does not create a fundamental right to admission to an Open Air Camp”, but reinforces the requirement that discretion under Rules 3, 6 and 14 be exercised rationally and on relevant material. It also held that the nature and gravity of the offence is a distinct relevant consideration, “particularly in POCSO Act cases”, given the nature of the camp.
The answer to the reference
The question referred was whether a prisoner convicted under Section 376 IPC or the POCSO Act can be shifted to an open air camp in view of Rule 3. The Full Bench answered:
“A prisoner convicted under Section 376 IPC or POCSO Act is not totally ineligible for transfer to an Open Air Camp. However, such a prisoner has no automatic right to admission in Open Air Camp, and the nature and gravity of the offence including the age of the victim and the facts of the case are legitimate considerations for the Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee must make an individualised, reasoned assessment of institutional conduct, reformative potential, risk and readiness for reintegration, and record its reasons for transfer to Open Air Camp, in line with direction C(i) in the matter of Suhas Chakma (supra), and where the Advisory Committee finds such a prisoner suitable, it may impose condition to protect other inmates, particularly children, and may revoke the placement on breach.”
The Court held that the earlier Division Bench decisions in Rajendra @ Goru, Bhag Singh @ Bhagirath and Vipin @ Vinkesh @ Vika “do not lay down correct law” and overruled them. The individual matters were sent to the appropriate Division Bench to be decided in light of the answer. The Full Bench did not decide whether any of the petitioners should actually be transferred.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling settles a conflict that left prisoners in the same position to be treated differently depending on which Division Bench heard their petition. It rejects a blanket exclusion on the basis of conviction alone, while keeping the gravity of the offence, the age of the victim and the safety of other inmates, particularly children, squarely on the table for the Advisory Committee. In practice, the burden stays on the prisoner to show exceptional circumstances, and the authority must now record reasons either way. The decision does not direct the release or transfer of any individual convict.
If a child is in distress or needs help, CHILDLINE 1098 is available free of charge, 24 hours a day.
Case Title: Gangaram v. State of Rajasthan and Others [D.B. Criminal Reference No. 1/2024, with D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 16575/2026 and 16577/2026]
Bench: Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Justice Sameer Jain and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar, Rajasthan High Court
Date of Judgment: October 26, 2026 (reserved on September 30, 2026)
Appearances: Anshuman Saxena, T.C. Swami, Pankaj Gupta, Vishram Prajapati, Jai Lodha, Govind Rawat, B.R. Choudhary, Dheeraj Singhal and Tarun Agarwal for the petitioners; Rajesh Choudhary (GA-cum-AAG) with Aman Agarwal, Gaurav Gupta and Neha Goyal for the State.