Calcutta High Court Directs Disbursement Of Compensation To Heirs Of Inmates Who Died From Unnatural Causes In Custody

The Calcutta High Court has directed the Inspector General of Correctional Services, West Bengal, to expeditiously disburse compensation to the heirs and legal representatives of inmates who died unnatural deaths in correctional homes, based on the data collected by the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA).

A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Aryak Dutt was hearing a batch of public interest litigations concerning conditions in correctional homes, including a suo motu proceeding concerning an undertrial prisoner lodged at Dum Dum Central Correctional Home.

The direction came after the Court had, on July 15, 2026, put in place a mechanism for identifying the heirs and legal representatives of deceased inmates so that compensation due to them could be disbursed.

The Bench noted that the State had earlier taken the position that compensation could not be disbursed in several cases because the necessary particulars of the heirs and legal representatives of deceased inmates were unavailable.

The Court was informed by the SLSA that the State Government had, by a notification dated November 29, 2019, introduced the “West Bengal Correctional Services Prisoners (Unnatural Death Compensation) Scheme, 2019”. Under Regulation 3(3) of the scheme, the fund created for payment of compensation was to be operated by the Inspector General of Correctional Services.

In view of the scheme, the Court directed the Inspector General of Correctional Services to disburse compensation to the heirs and legal representatives of deceased inmates on the basis of the data provided by the Member Secretary of the SLSA.

The Bench directed that where the Inspector General found the information supplied by the SLSA insufficient to facilitate disbursement, he would have to pass a reasoned order in respect of each deceased inmate and communicate it to the Member Secretary, SLSA.

Where the available data was sufficient, the Inspector General was directed to proceed with disbursement expeditiously.

The Court further directed the Member Secretary, SLSA to immediately hand over all data collected regarding the heirs and legal representatives of deceased inmates to the Inspector General of Correctional Services. The SLSA was also permitted to update the data from time to time.

The Bench noted that the SLSA's report, taken on record on September 10, 2026, showed that the heirs and representatives of several prisoners remained unidentified. However, the report covered only the period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2021.

Accordingly, the Court directed the SLSA to undertake a similar exercise for all deceased inmates for the period from January 1, 2022 till date and to continue updating the data for subsequent periods.

The State was directed to forthwith provide the SLSA with the list of persons who had died in custody in correctional homes between January 1, 2022 and the date of the order, and to keep updating the list.

Monitoring Of Supreme Court Directions On Open Correctional Institutions

The Court also considered the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors., decided on February 26, 2026, concerning compliance and monitoring of directions relating to Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs).

The Supreme Court had directed all High Courts to register suo motu writ petitions as continuing mandamus proceedings to monitor implementation of its directions, besides directing every State and Union Territory to constitute a Monitoring Committee for the management of OCIs.

The Calcutta High Court was informed that such a Committee had already been constituted in West Bengal.

The Bench also declined a request by the learned Amicus Curiae to segregate three of the writ petitions for separate hearing. It observed that the three petitions concerned inhuman conditions in correctional homes, while the other proceedings also sought ameliorative measures concerning correctional homes.

The Court held that segregating them could lead to duplication of efforts and create a possibility of conflicting judicial decisions.

The Amicus Curiae was given liberty to place further material before the Court regarding the alleged continuation of inhuman conditions in correctional homes.

The batch of writ petitions was directed to be listed after two weeks.

Case: In Re: The Court in its own motion