The Supreme Court mandates structural reforms to strengthen Open Correctional Institutions, calls them a cost-effective and constitutionally aligned solution to overcrowded prisons.
In a landmark judgment aimed at transforming prison administration across the country, the Supreme Court has issued comprehensive directions to States and Union Territories to expand and effectively implement Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) as a structural response to chronic overcrowding in prisons.
The ruling came in a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution highlighting inhuman conditions arising from excessive prison populations and the failure of States to adopt sustainable decongestion measures.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Mehta underscored that constitutional guarantees do not end at the prison gates. “The guarantee of life and personal dignity under Article 21 extends beyond the prison gates,” the Court observed, warning that overcrowding erodes dignity, access to healthcare, rehabilitation prospects and basic human rights.
Overcrowding: A Constitutional Crisis
Relying on the National Crime Records Bureau’s Prison Statistics India, 2023, the Court noted that prisons nationwide are operating at an alarming occupancy rate of 120.8%. Several States — including Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya and the National Capital Territory of Delhi — have reported occupancy levels exceeding 150%.
The Court reiterated that overcrowding is not merely an administrative concern but a constitutional issue implicating Article 21 protections against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The petition had sought, among other reliefs, permanent monitoring mechanisms for prison occupancy, strengthening of High Powered Committees formed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and systemic measures to prevent prisoners from being subjected to degrading conditions due to congestion.
Open Correctional Institutions: A Proven Alternative
The Court identified Open Correctional Institutions as one of the most effective and humane responses to prison overcrowding. Unlike closed prisons, OCIs operate on principles of trust and self-discipline rather than strict physical confinement.
Citing data placed on record, the Court highlighted the dramatic cost difference:
- Per-prisoner monthly expenditure in open prisons: approximately ₹500
- Per-prisoner monthly expenditure in closed prisons: approximately ₹7,094
- Per-prisoner daily cost in closed prisons: ₹333.12
- Per-prisoner daily cost in open prisons: ₹49.60
These figures, particularly from Rajasthan’s open prison model, demonstrated not only rehabilitative value but significant fiscal prudence.
Despite these advantages, the Court expressed strong disapproval of what it termed “rank apathy and indifference” on the part of several States in adopting and expanding OCIs, even after earlier judicial directions in In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2018).
Key Findings: Under-Utilisation and Gender Exclusion
Following Court directions, a nationwide questionnaire was circulated to assess OCI functioning. The data revealed stark disparities:
Under-utilisation
Many States reported extremely low occupancy in OCIs — as low as 6% in Delhi, 15% in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, and 20% in Assam — even as closed prisons remain overcrowded.
Absence in Several States
Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Jharkhand, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Sikkim reported having no OCIs. Most Union Territories also lack such facilities.
Women Prisoners Marginalised
The Court noted systemic exclusion of women from OCIs. Several States expressly bar women from eligibility, while in others no women have been transferred despite formal eligibility.
In Kerala, for instance, a women’s OCI had only 30% occupancy, while male facilities were above 80%.
Structural and Qualitative Concerns
The Court also flagged serious qualitative shortcomings: Stringent eligibility norms requiring prisoners to serve 4–12 years in closed prisons before transfer, extending up to 21 years in Gujarat. Agriculture-centric work models limiting skill development. Vast disparities in wages — from ₹40 per day in some States to ₹548 in others. Inadequate healthcare infrastructure in OCIs. Limited educational and vocational opportunities. Reversion to closed prisons as a frequent disciplinary measure.
These variations revealed the absence of uniform minimum standards across States.
Constitutional and International Framework
The Court anchored its reasoning in constitutional principles of dignity, reformative justice and equality. It referred to Chapter XXIII of the Model Prison Manual, 2016, and Section 50 of the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, which formally recognise Open Correctional Institutions as vehicles for rehabilitation and reintegration.
The Court also cited the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules), particularly Rule 89, which acknowledges that open prisons provide the most favourable conditions for rehabilitation of carefully selected prisoners.
Operative Directions
In its final directions, the Supreme Court:
- Directed States and Union Territories to establish and expand OCIs in a phased and time-bound manner.
- Mandated formulation of common minimum standards for governance and management of OCIs.
- Ordered review and rationalisation of rigid eligibility criteria.
- Called for inclusion of women prisoners and creation of facilities enabling family integration.
- Directed alignment of vocational and educational training with market-relevant skills.
- Emphasised cost-effectiveness and fiscal sustainability as grounds for expansion.
- Established compliance and monitoring mechanisms to ensure implementation.
The Court made it clear that OCIs must no longer be treated as “peripheral experiments” but as integral components of a constitutionally compliant correctional system.
Case Details
Case Title: Suhas Chakma Versus UOI
Citation: JURISHOUR-148-SC-2026
Case No.: Writ Petition (C) No(S). 1082 Of 2020
Date: February 26, 2026
