Supreme Court issues nationwide directions to expand open prisons

The Supreme Court recently issued a series of binding directions to all States and Union Territories to expand and strengthen Open Correctional Institutions or open prisons [Suhas Chakma vs. Union of India & Ors.].

Open prisons refer to minimum-security correctional facilities designed without traditional walls or bars. Prisoners are expected to serve out their jail sentence under minimal security, thereby shifting the main focus of imprisonment from punishment to rehabilitation and reformation.

In a February 26 ruling, a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that prisons in India are operating at over 120 per cent occupancy, with some States reporting more than 150 per cent overcrowding.

Given the various advantages of open prisons, including in tackling such prison congestion problems, the Court has issued a slew of directions to expand their functionality in India.

It has also constituted a High-Powered Committee for Reform and Governance of Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs or open prisons) to formulate standards and streamline the governance of open prisons across India.

The committee will be headed by former Supreme Court Justice Ravindra Bhat and is expected to submit its report within six months.

Commenting on how open prisons can help serve the cause of reformative justice, the Court also observed,

"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 selfdiscipline, 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 Court noted that, as per the National Crime Records Bureau’s (NCRB) Prison Statistics India 2023, prisons across the country are operating at 120.8 per cent of their intended occupancy. Several States, including Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi, have reported occupancy levels exceeding 150 per cent.

It was pointed out that many States either do not have any open prisons at all or are severely under-utilising existing ones. In some States, occupancy in open prisons is as low as 6 per cent to 20 per cent. Several Union Territories have no OCIs whatsoever.  

The Court also found that women prisoners are either excluded or grossly under-represented in OCIs. In multiple States, women are not eligible for transfer to open prisons. Even where eligible, no actual transfers have taken place.  

"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," the Court held.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by human rights activist Suhas Chakma in 2020. The petition highlighted alarming overcrowding in prisons and sought structural, long-term measures to address inhumane and degrading conditions faced by inmates.

Initially, the case was heard along with the suo motu proceedings relating to COVID-19 in prisons. Later, it was de-tagged. In May 2024, the Court identified Open Correctional Institutions as one of the most viable long-term solutions to prison congestion.  

The Court appointed Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria and Advocate K Parameshwar as amici curiae. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) was also asked to assist. A detailed questionnaire was circulated to all States and Union Territories to gather both quantitative and qualitative data on OCIs.  

The data placed before the Court revealed serious concerns.

The Court also expressed disappointment over the response of various States in taking steps to enhance or make functional open prisons despite its advantages.

"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," it said.

Further, on the cost-effectiveness of open prisons, the Court recorded that the per-prisoner daily expenditure in closed prisons in Rajasthan was approximately ₹333, whereas in open prisons it was only around ₹49.60.

Directions issued

The Court has now directed the States with no OCIs to assess the feasibility and necessity of establishing OCIs within three months.

States that have existing facilities but report underutilisation have been directed to develop time-bound protocols for filling vacancies in OCIs and open barracks within three months and place these before State-level monitoring committees.

On the exclusion and under-representation of women prisoners in open prisons, the Court has directed the States to restructure existing OCIs and/or open barracks to allocate adequate capacity for women prisoners.

The Bench further directed States to amend or modify existing rules, regulations and executive instructions governing OCIs to remove unduly rigid eligibility criteria and strengthen rehabilitative avenues.

It reiterated that incarceration does not extinguish fundamental rights and that prisoners retain protection under Article 21. Open prisons, the Court clarified, must function as genuine rehabilitative institutions and not merely as labour or agricultural camps.

"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 and the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the judgment reads.

Among other directives, the Court has ordered States to promote family integration and social support systems in open prisons, including visitation, home leave and, wherever feasible, cohabitation, consistent with security considerations.

To ensure compliance, the Court adopted a robust monitoring framework. It directed all High Courts to register suo motu writ petitions as continuing mandamus to monitor compliance with the present judgment within their respective jurisdictions.

Every State and Union Territory has been directed to constitute a Monitoring Committee for the Management of OCIs within four weeks. These committees will be headed by the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority or a nominee, including a former High Court judge.

State Committees must submit quarterly status reports to the concerned High Court detailing compliance steps, utilisation levels, expansion progress and implementation challenges. The first such report is to be filed by August 21, 2026.

High Courts, through their Registrar Generals, are required to submit consolidated annual reports to the Supreme Court. The first consolidated report must be placed before the top court by March 31, 2027.

The Court noted that earlier directions issued in 2018 in the In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons case had not yielded meaningful results and emphasised that the present directions 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, Additional Advocate Generals Shiv Mangal Sharma and Hemant Gupta, Deputy Advocate General Kartikeya Rastogi, and Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, along with advocates Rajan K Chourasia, Kanu Agrawal, Raghav Sharma, Priyanka Terdal, Zoheb Hussain, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Shivika Mehra, Ishaan Sharma, Sarthak Karol, Astha Singh, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Ketan Paul, Mayank Pandey, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, Devika AL, Riddhi Bose, Rachita Chawla, Sampriti Baksi, Rishi Agrawal, Saurabh Rajpal, Saubhagya Sundriyal, Vinay Kumar Singh, Samar Vijay Singh, Payal Gupta, Sabarni Som, Rony John, Aman Dev Sharma, Rashmi Nandakumar, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Prerna Singh, Keshav Singh, Dhruv Yadav, Eliza Barr, Disha Singh, Shuvodeep Roy, Deepayan Dutta, Saurabh Tripathi, Prashant Kumar Umrao, Swati Ghildiyal, Neha Singh, Akshay Girish Ringe, Inderdeep Kaur Raina, Ranjeet Saw, Tamanna Kavdia, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Anand Dilip Landge, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Shrirang B Varma, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Anupama Ngangom, Rajkumari Divyasana, Anando Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, Pooja Singh, K Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Yanmi Phazang, Akshay Amritanshu, Sarthak Srivastava, Mayur Goyal, Sameer Abhyankar, Rahul Kumar, Aakash Thakur, Maha Singh Rathore, Amit Kumar Chawla, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Akhileshwar Jha, Varun Varma, Mahi Pal Singh, Anupam Kumar, Sabarish Subramanian, Devina Sehgal, Dhananjay Yadav, Yatharth Kansal, Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Dhyani, Manan Verma, Sumit Kumar, Pranjal Tandon, Mansi Diwakar, Kunal Mimani, Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Bhuvan Kapoor, Varun Chugh, Krishna Kant Dubey, Ankit Raj, Indira Bhakar, Yogesh Vats, Santosh Ramdurg and Shreekant Neelappa Terdal.

[Read Judgement]