Supreme Court Orders States/UTs To Frame Policy For Early Release Of Elderly And Terminally Ill Prisoners
The Supreme Court today directed all States and Union Territories to prepare and notify, within three months, a policy governing the early or premature release of elderly and terminally ill prisoners, while also prescribing a technology-based framework to process such cases.A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued the directions in a PIL filed by the National Legal...
The Supreme Court today directed all States and Union Territories to prepare and notify, within three months, a policy governing the early or premature release of elderly and terminally ill prisoners, while also prescribing a technology-based framework to process such cases.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued the directions in a PIL filed by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), which sought uniform guidelines across the country for the compassionate release of terminally ill, sick, infirm and elderly prisoners, particularly those above 70 years of age.
The petition stated that the number of elderly and infirm prisoners has been increasing and that many continue to remain in prison despite serious medical conditions and inadequate access to healthcare. It argued that their continued incarceration violates the guarantees of equality and life under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, apart from being inconsistent with internationally recognised human rights standards.
The Court directed every State and Union Territory to frame the policy in consultation with the respective State Legal Services Authority. The policy must clearly specify the eligibility criteria and procedural framework for considering applications for early or premature release. It must also contain a uniform definition of "terminal illness". The Court said States may adopt, with suitable modifications, the definition contained in the UNODC Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs, 2009, which describes terminal illness as a condition where there is no reasonable medical possibility that the patient's condition will not continue to deteriorate and result in death.
The Court suggested that States may adopt the definition of "terminal illness" contained in the UNODC Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs, which describes it as a condition where there is no reasonable medical possibility that the patient's condition will not continue to deteriorate and result in death.
The Cench further directed the States to constitute independent Medical Boards at the divisional and State levels to objectively assess and certify cases involving terminal illness or advanced medical vulnerability. The Medical Boards will comprise qualified medical professionals and periodically review identified cases.
The Court said the policy must prescribe a time-bound, transparent and accessible procedure for processing applications for compassionate release. It directed that procedural delays resulting in prisoners spending their final months or years in custody must be avoided. Every decision must contain reasons and remain open to judicial review.
It also directed that the policy be integrated with the functioning of Undertrial Review Committees (UTRCs). These Committees have been directed to periodically examine the cases of prisoners who are terminally ill, elderly or physically incapacitated and recommend appropriate legal action, including bail, parole, remission or release.
The Court directed that applications seeking early or premature release be processed through the e-Prisons portal. Every application must be digitally registered and assigned a unique tracking number. It directed that the platform must record every stage of the process, including the filing of the application, medical examination, reports submitted by prison officials, recommendations of the Medical Board and the Undertrial Review Committee, the final decision of the competent authority and the reasons recorded for that decision.
The Court further directed that the portal should support time-bound processing by generating alerts and monitoring deadlines. It directed that the system should also generate compliance reports and enable oversight by the State Governments, State Legal Services Authorities and other competent authorities, while ensuring that prisoners' medical and personal information remains protected.
To facilitate implementation, the Court directed the Union Government, through the Ministries of Law and Justice and Home Affairs, along with the National Informatics Centre (NIC), to provide technical assistance, digital infrastructure, software support and training to States and Union Territories.
The NIC has also been directed to upgrade and maintain the e-Prisons portal so that applications for compassionate, early or premature release can be processed, tracked and monitored through a uniform digital mechanism across the country.
The Court directed the Union Government and all States and Union Territories to file compliance affidavits within six months. These affidavits must indicate the steps taken to implement the Court's directions, the status of the policy required to be framed, and details of prisoners identified for release and cases that are under consideration.
The Court kept the matter on January 19, 2027 to consider the compliance reports.
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 and Article 32 – Prisons and Inmates – Incarceration of Elderly and Terminally Ill Prisoners – Right to Live with Dignity - Writ petition filed by NALSA under Article 32 raising systemic concerns over the continued confinement of convicted/undertrial prisoners of advanced age (above 70 years) and those who are terminally ill – i. Suspension of Rights Denied - The Supreme Court observed that prisons are instruments of lawful confinement but not spaces where constitutional values are suspended - The guarantees of dignity, fairness, and humane treatment continue to operate with full force even behind prison walls - Prolonged detention under conditions of severe physical suffering and inadequate medical care results in the erosion of human dignity, converting lawful punishment into cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment – ii. Locus Standi of NALSA - NALSA has the requisite locus standi to maintain public interest/social justice litigation to espouse the collective constitutional rights of vulnerable and marginalized sections under Section 4(d) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - iii. Federal Competence vs. Judicial Restraint - While "prisons and persons detained therein" falls exclusively under the legislative domain of States (Schedule VII, List II), the Court holds that constitutional restraint cannot equate to constitutional abdication where persistent or systemic violations of fundamental rights occur. [Relied on National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 348; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248; Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494; Dr. P. Varavara Rao v. National Investigation Agency (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1004); Paras 17-38]
Case no. – W.P.(Crl.) No. 162/2025 Diary No. 17527 / 2025
Case Title – National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 684