Click the Play button to listen to article

Following repeated push by the Allahabad High Court over delays in expanding the open prison system in the state, the Uttar Pradesh Government on November 2 sanctioned ₹4.59 crore for setting up 3 new Open Correctional Institution (OCI) facilities in the State.

A Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi was informed about the decision on November 4 by Rajendra Pensiya, Special Secretary, Jail Administration & Reform Department, Government of UP.

The sanctioned amount will be utilised to establish the facilities at Central Prison, Fatehgarh, for 100 prisoners; Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, for 50 women prisoners; and District Jail, Gautam Buddh Nagar, for 80 prisoners.

The State's compliance affidavit disclosed that Government Order No. 912 dated November 2, 2026, had been issued and the necessary budgetary allocation made.

The High Court, however, added that the State authorities must commit to a definite timeline not only for setting up the facilities but also for identifying eligible convicts who would be placed there once the institutions become operational.

"Though, learned Additional Advocate General would assure the Court that the new facilities, above described, would be set up without any further delays, in the nature of the issue that has arisen before us, it is imperative that the State Authorities commit themselves to a definite time frame within which not only such facilities would be set up, but identified/eligible convicts would be placed at such facilities arising on the application of the State policy in that regard," the Court observed.

When the Bench sought details regarding the timeline, Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi informed it that instructions were not complete and sought time.

The Court accordingly directed the Special Secretary, Jail Administration and Reform Department, to file a further affidavit disclosing details including the selection of the agency, the construction required and the time frame for completing the construction and setting up the facilities.

The affidavit must also disclose the efforts already initiated or proposed to identify deserving convicts who could be placed in the new facilities immediately after they are set up.

The matter has been listed for November 20.

It may be noted that this latest development follows a series of orders in which the High Court had repeatedly questioned the State Government over the delay in establishing additional open correctional institutions.

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was registered earlier this year pursuant to a Supreme Court order issuing comprehensive directions to ensure the effective utilisation and expansion of Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) across the country. Related PILs were tagged with this matter

Read more about the Supreme Court's order: Supreme Court Issues Nationwide Directions To Expand And Reform Open Prisons

On October 27, the High Court had expressed concern that the proposal to establish at least three new facilities had remained delayed despite repeated assurances.

"Such state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue, indefinitely. Time has come for the officers of the State to explain to the Court, personally, why the smallest steps required to carry out the reform, is delayed. Leaving all administrative discretion with the State, it is difficult to understand why no concrete steps have been taken to provide for the minimal amount of Rs. 4.60 crore to set up the three facilities, as has been assured by the State Government, from beginning", the Court had remarked in its previous order.

The State had initially estimated a capital requirement of approximately ₹90 crore for the 3 proposed facilities. However, following physical re-inspections, it informed the Court that substantial infrastructure was already available at Central Prison, Fatehgarh, Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, and District Jail, Gautam Buddh Nagar.

The facilities could largely be developed by utilising existing buildings, with necessary additions, alterations and repairs.

Consequently, the estimated capital requirement was revised to approximately ₹4.59 crore.

The Court noted that the State had revised its proposal multiple times and had still not provided the necessary funds. On October 5, the bench had observed thus:

"Empty proposals and wishful thinking will take the cause no further."

Earlier, in its July 28 order, the High Court had noted that Uttar Pradesh had only one open correctional institution, Model Jail, Lucknow.

According to the affidavit then filed by the State, the facility had a capacity of 800 inmates, but only 316 prisoners were housed there. The Court observed that only 27% of the open correctional institution facility had been utilised.

It also noted that the State had not disclosed the objective criteria followed to select the prisoners housed at Model Jail, Lucknow, or the eligibility conditions against which prisoners across the State were assessed.

The Bench had questioned what steps were being taken to utilise the remaining capacity of 484 prisoners and stressed the need for the State to revisit its policy in line with best practices followed in Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Kerala.

The Court had also expressed concern that women prisoners appeared to have been deprived of the benefits of the policy solely on gender considerations. It expected the State to incorporate appropriate measures to extend the benefits of open correctional institutions to women prisoners.

In related news, the Allahabad High Court sought a detailed affidavit from the Director General (DG) of the Uttar Pradesh Prison Administration and Reform Services on overcrowding in jails across the State.

The Court sought the affidavit after being apprised that UP's prison capacity is 76,162, while 80,326 prisoners and convicts are currently confined in these facilities.

A Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi observed that there is excess occupancy over capacity.

Therefore, it directed the Prison Department's DG to file a proper affidavit, preferably in a tabular form, disclosing the correct current status of overcrowding in jails and the efforts being made to address the problem.

The Court passed the direction while hearing a 2018 suo motu public interest litigation titled In Re: Overcrowding In Prisons.

Tags: