Supreme Court Issues Nationwide Directions For Open Prisons; Flags ‘Rank Apathy’ By States In Tackling Overcrowding Crisis

Accordingly, all High Courts were directed to register suo motu writ petitions as continuing mandamus within their respective jurisdictions to monitor compliance with the judgment, particularly in relation to the establishment, functioning, and expansion of open prisons.

Calling the response of several States “marked by rank apathy and indifference”, the Bench expressed concern that despite clear legal frameworks and repeated judicial directions, OCIs remain grossly underutilised across the country, even as closed prisons continue to operate beyond capacity.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “…to ensure that the constitutional mandate of equality, non-discrimination and the right to live with dignity, as guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India, is meaningfully realised in the administration of prisons across the country. They seek to give concrete effect to the philosophy that underlies our criminal justice system and to ensure that OCIs function as effective instruments of rehabilitation, reformation and social reintegration, in accordance with the constitutional vision, the settled jurisprudence of this Court, and the domestic and international normative frameworks governing incarceration”.

Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar appeared as the amicus curiae, Advocate Sudhanshu Tiwari appeared for the petitioner Suryaprakash V Raju, ASG, Senior Advocates Lenin Singh Hijam, Jaideep Gupta, Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Dr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G. appeared for the respondent.

The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, initially sought permanent mechanisms to monitor overcrowding and ensure humane conditions in prisons, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, during the course of proceedings, the Court expanded its inquiry to examine systemic prison reforms, focusing on the role of open prisons as a structural solution.

The Court expressed serious concern over the exclusion and under-representation of women prisoners in OCIs. Several States, including Assam, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Punjab, Telangana, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, have made women ineligible for transfer to open institutions. In some States where women are technically eligible, no transfers have taken place.

The data placed before the Court revealed stark disparities, wherein open prisons in several States such as Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand operate at occupancy levels as low as 6% to 15%, while conventional prisons across India are functioning at over 120% capacity, with some States exceeding 150%.

The Court also noted the striking cost differential between closed and open prisons, where the State spends approximately ₹333 per day on a prisoner in a closed jail, the expenditure drops to around ₹49 per day in an open prison, highlighting both fiscal prudence and rehabilitative value.

Despite these advantages, the Court found that many States either lack open prison facilities entirely or impose restrictive eligibility criteria that delay transfers for decades. Particularly troubling was the near exclusion of women prisoners, with several States expressly denying them access to open institutions.

Therefore, after appointing amicus curiae and collecting extensive quantitative and qualitative data from States, the Court issued structured directions, including:

-Expansion and effective utilisation of existing OCIs;

-Framing of common minimum standards for governance;

-Inclusion of women prisoners in eligibility frameworks;

-Diversification of vocational training aligned with market skills;

-Strengthening healthcare and family-integration measures; and

-Compliance monitoring mechanisms, with warnings of personal appearance of Chief Secretaries in case of non-cooperation.

To ensure implementation at the executive level, the Court directed every State and Union Territory to constitute a Monitoring Committee within four weeks. This Committee is to be headed by the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority or a nominee (including a retired High Court judge), and must include the Home Secretary and a senior prison officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General. The Committee has been entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring compliance with the Court’s directions, overseeing the proper utilisation and expansion of open prisons, facilitating the identification and transfer of eligible prisoners, and reviewing progress while addressing any practical or administrative obstacles.

At the national level, the High Courts were directed to compile consolidated annual reports and forward them to the Supreme Court. These reports must summarise the compliance status of all States and Union Territories, identify best practices, and highlight gaps requiring further intervention. The Court clarified that this multi-tier monitoring system is intended to ensure institutional accountability, continuous judicial oversight, and faithful implementation of the constitutional mandate of prison reform and prisoner rehabilitation.

The Court relied upon the Model Prison Manual, 2016, the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, and international standards such as the Nelson Mandela Rules, which recognise open prisons as the most effective means of rehabilitating prisoners through trust, responsibility and social integration.

Consequentially, the Bench directed the matter to be listed on 01-09-2026 for the consideration of the status report submitted by the High-Powered Committee containing its recommendations and draft Common Minimum Standards; and on 31-03-2027 for consideration of the consolidated annual reports submitted by the High Courts through their respective Registrars General.

Cause Title: Suhas Chakma v. Union Of India And Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 198]

Appearances:

Amicus Curiae: K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv, Raji Gurujaj, Veda Singh, Prasad Hegde, Sai Kaushal, Advocates.

Petitioner: Satish Pandey, AOR Jay Jaimini Pandey, Smriti Kumari, Meghraj Singh, Harendra Kumar Sharma, Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari, Tanvir Islam Siddiqui, Aakash Saini, Akbar Ali, Sadiya Shakeel, Anirudh Bankura, Sakshi Dubey, Sudhanshu Tiwari, Advocates.

Respondent: Suryaprakash V Raju, ASG, Rajan K Chourasia, Kanu Agrawal, Raghav Sharma, Priyanka Terdal, Zoheb Hussain, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Prerna Singh, Dhruv Yadav, Keshav Singh, Disha Singh, Eliza Bar, Shuvodeep Roy, Deepayan Dutta, Saurabh Tripathi, Abhishek Pandey, Prashant Kumar Umrao, Swati Ghildiyal, Neha Singh, Hemant Gupta, Samar Vijay Singh, Payal Gupta, Sabarni Som, Rony John, Aman Dev Sharma, Neha Raj Singh, Ujjwal Singh Parmar, Kartikeya Rastogi, Inderdeep Kaur Raina, Akshay Girish Ringe, Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, Devika A L, Riddhi Bose, Rachita Chawla, Sampriti Baksi, Rishi Agrawal, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, Akanksha Tomar, Anand Dilip Landge, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Shrirang B Varma, Lenin Singh Hijam, Sr. Adv. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Anupama Ngangom, Rajkumari Divyasana, Anando Mukherjee, K Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Yanmi Phazang, Akshay Amritanshu, Drishti Rawal, Abhay Nair, Sarthak Srivastava, Mayur Goyal, Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG, Saurabh Rajpal, Saubhagya Sundriyal, Sameer Abhyankar, Rahul Kumar, Aakash Thakur, Ripul Swati Kumari, Krishna Rastogi, Aryan Srivastava, Yachna Sharma, Maha Singh Rathore, Amit Kumar Chawla, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Akhileshwar Jha, Anupam Kumar, Ashwani Kumar, Sabarish Subramanian, Devina Sehgal, Dhananjay Yadav, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Dhyani, Suraj Singh, Sanjay Jain, Manan Verma, Ishita Bist, Sumit Kumar, Pranjal Tandon, Kunal Mimani, Shraddha Chirania, Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Bhuvan Kapoor, Varun Chugh, Krishna Kant Dubey, Ankit Raj, Indira Bhakar, Santosh Ramdurg, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Shivika Mehra, Ishaan Sharma, Sarthak Karol, Astha Singh, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Ketan Paul, Mayank Pandey, Rashmi Nandakumar, Yashmita Pandey, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment