A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma observed that the DG Prisons had shown “complete disregard” for the High Court's orders by failing to file an affidavit in his own signature, despite being specifically directed to look into the matter.

The Court also observed that implementation of the Supreme Court's directions appeared to have stalled, remarking that “perhaps after order of the apex court the matter has not moved an inch ahead on reporting compliance on directions of the apex court.”

The Court directed that the contempt notice be served on the DG Prisons within one week and asked him to file his response by the next date of hearing.

The proceedings arise from the Supreme Court's February 26, 2026 directions for the effective utilisation and expansion of Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) across the country. The Supreme Court had emphasised that open prisons must function as meaningful institutions of reform and rehabilitation.

The apex court had also directed all States and Union Territories to constitute monitoring committees headed by the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority to oversee implementation. High Courts were directed to register suo motu writ petitions as continuing mandamus to monitor compliance, in view of the lack of meaningful progress following its earlier directions in In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons.

Today, the High Court noted that under its October 13 order, the senior-most officer from Tihar Jail was expected to remain present with the necessary instructions to assist the Court. During the hearing on October 15, the DG Prisons and the Principal Secretary (Home) were physically present, following which an assurance was recorded that a date-wise account of developments, in the form of a flow chart, would be placed before the Court.

“Thereafter the least that was expected from the respondent was that the DG Prisons should swear an affidavit in the matter or that of Principal Secretary, Home,” the Court observed.

The State's counsel referred to an affidavit sworn by the Superintendent at Delhi Prisons headquarters, Tihar. When confronted, the Court said, the Special Secretary (Home) joined the proceedings virtually only after the hearing was underway.

The Court also recorded that the State's counsel was "handicapped" by the lack of assistance from the concerned officers in reporting compliance. It thus remarked that it was necessary to make the authorities “sensitive” to the directions issued by the apex court.

It further noted that only "one meeting" of the State Monitoring Committee had been held, on September 1, 2026, to implement the Supreme Court's directions. Although the meeting was chaired by the Secretary of the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, the government had not nominated the competent officer as required by the apex court.

Under the Supreme Court's directions, the monitoring committee is to be headed by the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority or his nominee. It must also include the State or UT Home Secretary, or a nominee not below the rank of Additional Secretary, and a senior Prisons Department officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General, nominated by the Home Department.

The High Court further observed that certain directions requiring State governments to amend their rules had not been implemented.

“Perhaps after order of the apex court the matter has not moved an inch ahead on reporting compliance on directions of the apex court,” the Court remarked, describing the officials' approach as “callous and insensitive.”

The Court observed that it was left with two possible courses of action: initiating contempt proceedings by referring the matter to the Supreme Court, which had issued the original directions, or proceeding against senior officers under the Contempt of Courts Act.

At this stage, the Special Secretary (Home) sought two weeks to place a paragraph-wise compliance report on record, stating that he had recently taken over the department. He also assured the Court that the next meeting of the monitoring committee, scheduled for October 30, would be attended by the senior officers concerned and that the requisite compliance details would be prepared with the assistance of the DLSA Secretary.

In view of these assurances, the Court deferred its decision to issue a contempt notice to the Chief Secretary.

The Delhi Government's counsel also assured the Court that the October 30 meeting would be attended by senior officers from the Prisons Department and the State government.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 20, with the Court directing that the replies be placed before it by November 18.