The Supreme Court of India has issued a landmark judgment aimed at systemic reform of the Indian prison system through the expansion and optimal utilization of Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs). A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta ruled that the constitutional guarantee of life and personal dignity under Article 21 extends beyond prison gates, mandating a shift from retributive to reformative penology.
The Court has constituted a High-Powered Committee, to be headed by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Retd.), to formulate “Common Minimum Standards” for the governance and management of OCIs across all States and Union Territories.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a Writ Petition filed under Article 32 by Suhas Chakma, highlighting the chronic problem of overcrowding in Indian prisons. The petitioner contended that excessive prison populations, often exceeding 150% of sanctioned capacity in several States, led to inhuman and degrading living conditions.
During the proceedings, the Court shifted its focus toward Open Correctional Institutions as a “humane and sustainable response” to congestion. The Court noted that despite previous directions in In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2018), States had shown “rank apathy and indifference” in adopting the Model Uniform Rules for OCIs.
Submissions of the Parties
The Union of India, through an affidavit dated July 9, 2024, submitted that while it had circulated the Model Prison Manual, 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, the primary responsibility lay with the States, as “prisons and persons detained therein” is a State subject under the Seventh Schedule.
The Amicus Curiae, Mr. K. Parameshwar, presented data indicating that OCIs are severely under-utilized. He highlighted that the per-prisoner monthly expenditure in an OCI in Rajasthan is approximately ₹500, compared to ₹7,094 in a closed prison. He further pointed out stringent eligibility criteria and the systemic exclusion of women from these facilities.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court analyzed the issue through the lens of constitutional morality and international standards, specifically the Nelson Mandela Rules.
1. On Under-Utilization and Fiscal Prudence
The Court observed that chronic overcrowding in closed prisons (reaching 207% in Delhi and 183% in Uttarakhand) coexists with significant vacancies in OCIs.
“No one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens but its lowest ones,” the Court noted, quoting Nelson Mandela.
Relying on fiscal data from Rajasthan, the Court found that OCIs are not only rehabilitative but also fiscally rational. Closed prisons were found to be nearly 78 times more expensive than open prisons.
2. Gender Discrimination and Exclusion of Women
The Court took serious exception to the fact that several States (including Assam, Gujarat, and UP) categorically exclude women from OCI eligibility.
“The exclusion of women from 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.”
3. Reorienting Penal Philosophy
The Bench emphasized that incarceration should not extinguish the opportunity for reformation. Citing Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka (1997), the Court reaffirmed that open prisons are the most successful application of the principle of “individualization of penalties.”
The Decision and Operative Directions
The Supreme Court issued several binding directions to the Union of India, States, and Union Territories:
- Constitution of High-Powered Committee: A committee led by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Retd.) is tasked with formulating “Common Minimum Standards” within six months. The committee will include members from NALSA, BPR&D, and various Union Ministries.
- Mandatory Utilization: States with existing OCIs must develop a time-bound protocol to fill vacancies within three months.
- Expansion for Women: All States must review rules that exclude women and create dedicated OCI facilities or open barracks for them. “Security concerns shall generally not be made a ground to deny women prisoners access,” the Court ordered.
- Establishment in New States: States currently lacking OCIs (e.g., Telangana, Haryana, Chhattisgarh) must assess the feasibility of establishing such institutions or creating open barracks within closed prisons.
- Multi-Tiered Monitoring: Every High Court is directed to register a suo motu writ petition as a “continuing mandamus” to monitor compliance. Additionally, State-level Monitoring Committees headed by the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority must be formed.
The Court concluded by reiterating that “prisoners do not cease to be bearers of constitutional rights upon incarceration.” The matter has been listed for September 1, 2026, to consider the report of the High-Powered Committee.
Case Title: Suhas Chakma v. Union of India and Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1082 of 2020
