The Supreme Court has directed all States and Union Territories to expand and strengthen Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs), commonly known as open prisons. The Court held that severe overcrowding in prisons violates prisoners’ dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued the directions on February 26 in Suhas Chakma vs. Union of India & Ors. The Court noted that Indian prisons operate at 120.8% of sanctioned capacity. Several States report overcrowding beyond 150%.
Open Prisons Promote Reform, Not Punishment
The Court described open prisons as minimum-security institutions that function without traditional walls or bars. These facilities focus on rehabilitation and reformation. They allow eligible inmates to work, maintain family ties, and prepare for reintegration into society.
The Bench reiterated that prisons must function as institutions of correction. It stressed that dignity, self-respect, and social reintegration are constitutional necessities, not aspirational goals.
High-Powered Committee Constituted
To ensure structural reform, the Court constituted a High-Powered Committee for Reform and Governance of OCIs. Former Supreme Court judge Justice Ravindra Bhat will chair the Committee. It must submit its report within six months.
NCRB Data Highlights Crisis
Relying on the NCRB’s Prison Statistics India 2023, the Court recorded a national occupancy rate of 120.8%. States such as Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi report occupancy levels exceeding 150%.
Several States do not operate open prisons at all. Others underutilise existing facilities. In some States, OCI occupancy ranges between 6% and 20%. Multiple Union Territories currently have no open prisons.
Gender Discrimination in Open Prisons
The Court also flagged the exclusion of women prisoners from OCIs. In several jurisdictions, authorities either deny women eligibility or fail to transfer them despite eligibility.
The Bench held that such exclusion amounts to blatant gender discrimination. It violates Articles 14 and 15(1) and infringes Article 21.
Procedural Background
Human rights activist Suhas Chakma filed the writ petition in 2020. He raised concerns about overcrowding and inhumane prison conditions. The Court initially heard the matter alongside its suo motu COVID-19 prison proceedings but later de-tagged it.
In May 2024, the Court identified open prisons as a long-term solution to systemic congestion.
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria and Advocate K Parameshwar assisted as amici curiae. The Court also sought assistance from NALSA. It circulated a detailed questionnaire to all States and Union Territories. The responses revealed serious deficiencies.
Expressing dissatisfaction, the Court observed that several States showed “rank apathy and indifference” toward expanding open prisons.
Cost-Effectiveness of Open Prisons
The Court also highlighted the economic benefits of OCIs. In Rajasthan, the per-prisoner daily expenditure in closed prisons stands at approximately ₹333. In contrast, open prisons cost around ₹49.60 per prisoner per day.
Key Directions Issued
The Court issued the following mandatory directions:
- States and Union Territories without OCIs must assess feasibility and establish such institutions within three months.
- States with underutilised OCIs must create time-bound protocols within three months to fill vacancies.
- Authorities must restructure facilities to ensure adequate accommodation for women prisoners.
- States must amend rigid eligibility criteria and strengthen rehabilitative frameworks.
- Governments must implement skill development, vocational education, and apprenticeship programmes for OCI inmates.
- Authorities must facilitate family integration through visitation rights, home leave, and cohabitation, subject to security considerations.
The Court clarified that incarceration does not extinguish fundamental rights. Open prisons must function as genuine rehabilitative institutions, not merely as labour camps.
Monitoring Framework
To ensure compliance, the Court established a structured oversight mechanism:
- All High Courts must register suo motu writ petitions as continuing mandamus proceedings.
- Every State and Union Territory must constitute a Monitoring Committee within four weeks. The Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority will chair the Committee or nominate a former High Court judge.
- Committees must submit quarterly compliance reports to their respective High Courts. The first report is due by August 21, 2026.
- High Courts must forward consolidated annual reports to the Supreme Court. The first report must reach the Court by March 31, 2027.
The Bench noted that earlier directions issued in 2018 in In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons failed to produce meaningful reform. It cautioned States against repeating that inaction.
