The Supreme Court, in a judgment
delivered on February 26, 2026, in the case of Suhas Chakma vs. Union of India
& Ors., issued comprehensive and binding directions to all States and Union
Territories to expand and strengthen Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs),
also known as open prisons. These minimum-security facilities, lacking
traditional walls or bars, prioritize rehabilitation, reformation, and
self-discipline over mere punishment, allowing inmates to engage in meaningful
work, vocational training, and family interactions while serving sentences. A
bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta highlighted that Indian
prisons are severely overcrowded, operating at an average of 120.8 per cent
capacity as per the National Crime Records Bureau’s Prison Statistics India
2023, with several States including Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh,
and Delhi exceeding 150 per cent occupancy. The Court emphasized that open
prisons offer a cost-effective and humane alternative, noting that daily
per-prisoner expenditure in Rajasthan’s closed prisons is around ₹333, compared
to just ₹49.60 in open ones. It expressed concern over many States lacking any
OCIs, severe under-utilization in others (with occupancy as low as 6–20 per
cent), and the complete absence of such facilities in several Union
Territories.
The Court criticized the persistent
apathy and indifference of many States and Union Territories in adopting open
prisons despite their proven advantages in decongesting facilities and
advancing reformative justice. It constituted a High-Powered Committee for
Reform and Governance of Open Correctional Institutions, headed by former
Supreme Court Justice Ravindra Bhat, to formulate common minimum standards,
harmonize practices with constitutional mandates and international best
practices, and submit its report within six months. The bench observed that
prisons must function as institutions of correction where dignity,
self-respect, and social reintegration are constitutional necessities, with
meaningful work, vocational training, wages, humane conditions, and family ties
reflecting a philosophy that tempers punishment with compassion. It stressed
that transforming prisons from sites of suffering to spaces of opportunity is
integral to the promise of justice under the Constitution. The judgment arose
from a 2020 writ petition by human rights activist Suhas Chakma, which
spotlighted inhumane conditions due to overcrowding and sought long-term
structural remedies. The Court appointed amici curiae and involved the National
Legal Services Authority to gather data, revealing systemic failures including
gender discrimination against women prisoners.
The Court declared that excluding women
from OCIs or failing to transfer eligible ones constitutes blatant gender
discrimination, violating Articles 14, 15(1), and 21 of the Constitution, as it
deprives them of dignified living and rehabilitative opportunities. It directed
States to assess the feasibility of establishing OCIs within three months where
none exist, develop time-bound protocols to fill vacancies in under-utilized
facilities, restructure existing OCIs or open barracks to allocate adequate capacity
for women, amend rigid eligibility rules to prioritize rehabilitation, and
implement skill development, vocational education, apprenticeship programs,
family integration measures like visitation and home leave, and community
support systems. Incarceration does not extinguish fundamental rights, and open
prisons must genuinely serve as bridges to employability, self-reliance, and
reintegration rather than mere labour camps. To enforce compliance, the Court
mandated every High Court to register suo motu continuing mandamus petitions
for monitoring, required States and Union Territories to form Monitoring
Committees (headed by the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services
Authority or a nominee, including a former High Court judge) within four weeks,
and ordered quarterly status reports to High Courts (first due by August 21,
2026) and annual consolidated reports to the Supreme Court (first by March 31,
2027). The bench lamented that prior 2018 directions in a related case had
yielded little progress, underscoring the need for enforceable mechanisms to
align executive action with constitutional imperatives.
info@adhwaitha.com