Case Name: SUHAS CHAKMA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Petition Number: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1082 OF 2020
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 198
Date of Judgement: 26.02.2026
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
INTRODUCTION
In the present case, the Supreme Court examined the current status of prisons in states across India upon a Public Interest Litigation filed as a Writ Petition, highlighting the overcrowding of prisons and the establishment of Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) in prisons in compliance with the principle of reformative justice and issued comprehensive directions to states to establish OCIs for the purpose of reformation, rehabilitation and social integration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgement reiterated that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are constitutional guarantees which cannot cease to operate inside prisons.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The present Writ Petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India citing the concerns of overcrowding, exceeding the sanctioned capacity of inmates in prisons, along with their degrading living human conditions. The specific grievance was with regard to issuing directions for executing permanent and effective mechanisms to alleviate overcrowding of prisoners including transfer of inmates, decongestion and other structural measures, contending that this is a gross violation of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court noted the indifferent response of the States and non-conformity to the directions issued in In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons. On 9th May 2024, the Supreme Court appointed Mr. Parameshwar as Amicus Curiae in the present case, who on 17 May 2024, informed the Court that the Union Government had drafted a Model Draft Manual referring to Open Correctional Institutions, that despite being established under various names, they were not being utilised to the fullest. The Supreme Court directed the Amicus Curiae and the learned Counsel appearing for NALSA, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar to jointly prepare and circulate a questionnaire for all States to ascertain the status and functioning of such institutions. The States of Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Kerala and West Bengal were directed to share their best practices and frameworks. The Ministry of Home Affairs was directed to submit a Status Report on the recent development of OCIs.
ISSUES:
- Whether the State is obligated to establish Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs)?
- Legal Aid and Structural Reforms for Prisoners.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE AMICUS CURIAE
The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that since “prisons and persons detained therein” are a subject under the State list in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, the implementation rests with the States and Union Territories. The records of the existing frameworks of the aforementioned states were placed on record including eligibility criteria for transfer of prisoners, opportunities for social family integration and vocational training. The Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, submitted recommendations before the Hon’ble Court. The questionnaire submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae covered both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The Report highlighted the Under-utilisation of Open Barrack Prisons in the States of Tamilnadu, Himachal Pradesh, Bihar, Assam and Maharashtra.
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court Judgement underscores that prisoners, even when their liberty is deprived by due process of law, should not be deprived of fundamental constitutional guarantees; the State has an obligation that incarceration does not degenerate into inhumanity. In the present case, the Supreme Court addresses the fundamental question of sustained institutional response that embodies social healing and reformation. The Court examined the deeper question of structural and systematic approaches that enable rehabilitation and social integration.
It observed that the OCI Facilities in all States and Union Territories have to be filled to their respective capacities to provide greater opportunity to prisoners for rehabilitation and reformation. The Court expressed its disappointment on the non-compliance of the states with the previous 2018 directions, revealing the disconnect between constitutional mandate and executive action. It reiterated that within Article 21 lies the obligation of the State to facilitate rehabilitation and enable prisoners to lead a life of dignity.
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- The States take assessment of the feasibility and necessity of establishing OCIs in their respective jurisdictions and develop a time-bound protocol.
- Allocate land, infrastructure and other arrangements for establishing OCIs.
- Constitute a Monitoring Committee to evaluate the protocol.
- Develop a mechanism for transfer of prisoners.
- Rationalise and define the eligibility criteria for transfer of prisoners from closed prison to OCIs.
- Allocate adequate capacity for women prisoners.
- Promote Community-based employment, adequate wages and timely healthcare.
- Promote family social integration.
CONCLUSION
In the present case, the Supreme Court reiterates that the constitutional mandate of the Right to live with Dignity is not discriminated against in the administration of prisons and that hope and opportunity should also be given to those who once transgressed the law.
