The Supreme Court of India issued nationwide directions to expand open prisons, stressing that overcrowded jails running at over 120 per cent capacity violate prisoners’ dignity under Article 21. It directed all States and UTs to strengthen and widen Open Correctional Institutions.
The Supreme Court mandated that all States and Union Territories enhance and broaden the scope of Open Correctional Institutions, commonly known as open prisons.
These facilities are characterized by minimal security and lack traditional walls or bars. They focus on rehabilitation and reform rather than solely punishment, allowing inmates to serve their sentences in a less restrictive environment.
In a ruling on February 26, a Bench composed of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that prisons across India are operating at over 120 percent capacity, with certain States reporting overcrowding levels exceeding 150 percent.
Acknowledging the benefits of open prisons in addressing issues of congestion within the prison system, the Court has issued comprehensive directives to enhance their operations in India.
Additionally, the Court has formed a High-Powered Committee for the Reform and Governance of Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs). This committee, chaired by former Supreme Court Justice Ravindra Bhat, is tasked with developing standards and improving the management of open prisons nationwide. It is anticipated that the committee will present its report within six months.
In discussing how open prisons can advance the cause of reformative justice, the Court emphasized,
“This Court has long envisaged prisons as institutions of correction, where dignity, self-respect, and social reintegration are not aspirational ideals but constitutional necessities. The emphasis on meaningful work, vocational training, payment of wages, humane living conditions, and maintenance of family ties reflects a coherent judicial philosophy that punishment must be tempered by compassion and directed towards reform. Open and semi-open correctional institutions, premised on trust and self-discipline, naturally align with this vision… The transformation of prisons from sites of suffering to spaces of opportunity is thus integral to the promise of justice under the Constitution.”
The Supreme Court remarked,
“The transformation of prisons from sites of suffering to spaces of opportunity is integral to the promise of justice under the Constitution.”
The Court pointed out that, according to the National Crime Records Bureau’s (NCRB) Prison Statistics India 2023, the facilities nationwide are operating at 120.8 percent of their intended capacity. Several States, such as Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Delhi, reported occupancy levels exceeding 150 percent.
ALSO READ: Who Approves Furloughs in Delhi?: Convicts Challenge Prison Rule in High Court
It was noted that many States lack open prisons entirely or are underutilizing those that exist. In some regions, occupancy in open prisons is as low as 6 percent to 20 percent, and several Union Territories do not have any OCIs at all.
Furthermore, the Court observed that women prisoners are often excluded or significantly underrepresented in OCIs. In many States, women do not qualify for transfer to open facilities. Even in cases where eligibility exists, transfers are not being carried out.
The Court stated,
“The exclusion of women from OCIs, or failure to transfer them despite being eligible for transfer from closed prisons to OCIs, amounts to blatant gender discrimination, violative of Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution of India, and also infringes upon their right to live with dignity as guaranteed under Article 21,”
This ruling was part of a writ petition initiated by human rights activist Suhas Chakma in 2020, which highlighted critical overcrowding in prisons and called for structural, long-term strategies to tackle the inhumane conditions faced by inmates.
Initially, the case was linked to suo motu proceedings related to COVID-19 in prisons but was later considered separately. In May 2024, the Court identified Open Correctional Institutions as one of the most effective long-term solutions to address prison overpopulation.
The Court appointed Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria and Advocate K Parameshwar as amici curiae and requested assistance from the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).
A detailed questionnaire was distributed to all States and Union Territories to collect both quantitative and qualitative data concerning OCIs.
The data presented to the Court raised significant concerns.
The Court expressed its disappointment regarding the lackluster response from various States in enhancing or operationalizing open prisons, despite their considerable benefits.
It stated,
“The response of several States and Union Territories continues to be marked by rank apathy and indifference. The persistent failure to meaningfully adopt and expand what is widely acknowledged as one of the most effective solutions to overcrowding in prisons and reformative theory of punishment reflects a troubling disconnect between constitutional mandate and executive action… This Court is compelled, once again, to revisit the issue and to lay down structured and enforceable directions, so that Open Correctional Institutions are no longer treated as peripheral experiments,”
The Court noted the cost-effectiveness of open prisons, indicating that the daily expenditure per prisoner in closed prisons in Rajasthan was approximately Rs.333, while in open prisons, it was only about ₹49.60.
The Court has mandated that States without Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) conduct a feasibility assessment regarding their establishment within three months.
For States that currently have OCIs but report underuse, they are required to create time-bound protocols for filling vacancies in OCIs and open barracks within the same timeframe and present these protocols to State-level monitoring committees.
Regarding the under-representation of women in open prisons, the Court directed States to restructure existing OCIs and/or open barracks to ensure sufficient capacity for women prisoners.
Additionally, it instructed States to revise existing rules, regulations, and executive instructions governing OCIs to remove overly rigid eligibility criteria and enhance rehabilitative opportunities.
Emphasizing that incarceration should not eliminate fundamental rights, the Court clarified that prisoners retain protection under Article 21. Open prisons must operate as genuine rehabilitative institutions rather than mere labor or agricultural camps.
The judgment states,
“States and Union Territories are, therefore, under a constitutional obligation to develop and implement skill augmentation, vocational education and apprenticeship programmes for OCI inmates, so that the period spent in open conditions becomes a genuine bridge to employability, self-reliance and dignified reintegration into society, consistent with the reformative ethos of our criminal justice system and the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,”
Among other mandates, the Court has required States to foster family integration and social support systems in open prisons, which may include visitation, home leave, and, where feasible, cohabitation, according to security considerations.
To ensure adherence, the Court established a robust monitoring framework, directing all High Courts to register suo motu writ petitions as continuing mandamus to oversee compliance with the present judgment within their jurisdictions.
Each State and Union Territory is required to form a Monitoring Committee for the Management of OCIs within four weeks, headed by the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority or a nominee, which may include a former High Court judge.
State Committees must submit quarterly status reports to the relevant High Court, detailing compliance efforts, utilization levels, progress in expansion, and any challenges encountered. The first report must be filed by August 21, 2026.
High Courts, through their Registrar Generals, are responsible for submitting consolidated annual reports to the Supreme Court, with the first such report due by March 31, 2027.
ALSO READ: [BREAKING] Supreme Court Strikes Down Rules Enabling Caste Discrimination in Prisons
The Court remarked that the previous directives issued in 2018 in the In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons case had not produced significant results, stressing that the current directives must not meet the same fate.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Satish Pandey, Jay Jaimini Pandey, Dwaipayan Chatterjee, Nitika Dubey, and Sakshi Dubey.
The respondent authorities were represented by Additional Solicitor Generals SV Raju, Aishwarya Bhati, and Davinder Pal Singh, along with other legal representatives from various positions and firms.
Case Title: Suhas Chakma vs. Union of India & Ors.