Supreme Court Issues Nationwide Directions To Expand And Reform Open Prisons

The Supreme Court today issued comprehensive directions to ensure the effective utilisation and expansion of Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) across the country, holding that they must function as meaningful institutions of reform and rehabilitation.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the directions are issued to ensure that the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15 and 21 are realised in prison administration and to give effect to the reformative philosophy underlying the criminal justice system.

"The aforesaid directions are issued to ensure that the constitutional mandate of equality and non discrimination and the right to live with dignity as guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India is meaningfully realised in the administration of prisons across the country. This it to give concrete effect to the reformative philosophy that underlines our criminal justice system and to ensure that OCIs function as effective instruments of rehabilitation, reformation, and social reintegration", the Court stated.

It also took note of the economic advantage of OCIs over closed prisons, noting data from Rajasthan that the State spends nearly ₹3,000 per month on a prisoner in a closed prison, whereas expenditure on a prisoner in an OCI is about ₹50 per month.

"We have particularly taken note of the serious discrepancy or rather the serious economic advantage which the open OCIs have over closed prisons. As per the data from the State of Rajasthan which is startling in as much as for a prisoner in closed prison the state requires to spend nearly 3000 odd rupees per month while the prisoner in the OCI requires only expenditure of Rs 50 per month", the Court observed.

The Court issued these directions in a PIL concerning overcrowding in prisons and the functioning of Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs).

Establishment Of OCIs In States And Union Territories

The Court directed the States of Goa, Haryana, Jharkhand, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Telangana, which presently do not have any functional OCIs, to assess the feasibility and necessity of establishing such institutions and to develop a protocol for their establishment.

As regards Union Territories lacking OCI facilities, namely Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Lakshadweep and Puducherry, the Court directed the Union of India or the elected government of the concerned Union Territory to examine the feasibility of establishing OCIs. Alternatively, they may evolve a mechanism for transferring eligible prisoners to appropriate and proximate facilities in neighbouring States.

Non-Discrimination Against Women Prisoners

The Court directed all States and Union Territories to restructure existing OCIs and open barracks within three months to allocate adequate capacity for women. Where women are already legally permitted to be housed in OCIs and open barracks, the Court directed States and Union Territories create within one month a protocol for identification and timely transfer of eligible women and for filling existing vacancies for women.

Where integration is not feasible, authorities must create dedicated OCI facilities within closed prisons. The Court held that security concerns cannot generally justify denial of access and directed authorities to frame gender-sensitive mechanisms consistent with Articles 14, 15 and 21. It also directed the States and UTs to review and amend rules that exclude women.

Rationalization Of Eligibility Criteria

The Court directed the States and Union Territories to revisit eligibility criteria for transfer from closed prisons and base them on the nature of offence, demonstrated reformative potential, institutional conduct and readiness for social integration. Individualised and reasoned assessments must be carried so that OCIs do not function merely as labour camps, the Court said. It directed the states and UTs to adopt best practices from Maharashtra and Rajasthan for effective rehabilitative outcomes including models of community based employment, family integration and diversified vocational training.

Disciplinary Mechanisms And Grievance Redressal

The Court held that disciplinary mechanisms within OCIs shall be reform-oriented and proportionate. Diversion to closed prisons shall not be employed as a default punitive response except when strictly warranted, the Court directed. Further, the Court ordered all States and UTs to establish institutional grievance redressal mechanisms enabling inmates to raise concerns regarding work conditions, wages, healthcare, discipline or access to facilities, and ensure timely and fair disposal of such grievances.

Monitoring Compliance

The Court ordered all States and Union Territories to constitute monitoring committees headed by the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority to oversee implementation. It also directed High Courts to register suo motu writ petitions as continuing mandamus to monitor compliance, noting that its May 8, 2018 directions in In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons did not yield meaningful results.

Uniformity In Norms Across The Country

To bring uniformity, the Court constituted a high-powered committee for formulation of common minimum standards for governance and management of OCIs, harmonisation of correctional practices with constitutional principles and international best practices, identification of systemic gaps in existing frameworks, recommendation of standard eligibility assessment protocols, ensuring inclusive and non-discriminatory access including for women and transgender prisoners, suggesting capacity-building measures for prison officials, recommending mechanisms for periodic monitoring and data collection, and strengthening inter-agency coordination between prison departments, legal services authorities and other agencies.

The Court directed States and Union Territories to make necessary amendments of existing rules, regulations or administrative frameworks governing OCIs to give full effect to the aforementioned directions.

The Court also directed States and Union Territories to establish new OCIs and create open and semi-open barracks within closed prisons wherever feasible, noting Rajasthan's data that the State spends about ₹3,000 per month on a prisoner in a closed jail compared to around ₹50 in an OCI.

Background

The petition, filed in 2020, raised issues relating to prison congestion, rehabilitation of prisoners and access to legal aid. In May 2024, the Court observed that establishing open-air prisons or camps could be one solution to overcrowding and noted that such a system was functioning in Rajasthan.

On May 17, 2024, the Court noted that the Union Government had prepared a model draft manual referring to open-air prisons as OCIs and that data showed these institutions were underutilised. It directed circulation of qualitative and quantitative questionnaires to all States and Union Territories to gather detailed information.

The Court asked certain States to share best practices, and directed Ministry of Home Affairs to file a status report. On August 20, 2024, the Court directed all States and Union Territories to file complete responses within four weeks, warning that non-compliance could result in directions for the personal presence of Chief Secretaries.

In December 2025, Amicus Curiae highlighted that several States were functioning at less than 50-60% OCI capacity and that some did not allow women inmates in OCIs.

The Court highlighted that while prisons were overcrowded, existing OCIs were not being fully utilised and reserved orders. The Court thus decided to issue directions to ensure better utilisation of available facilities.

Case no. – WP (C) No. 1082/2020

Case Title – Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors.