The Supreme Court has directed all States and Union Territories to formulate and notify a comprehensive policy within three months for the early or premature release of prisoners who are either above an advanced age or are terminally ill.
Holding that imprisonment cannot deprive a person of the right to live with dignity, the bench f Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta emphasized that punishment must never degenerate into cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
A writ petition was filed by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), which highlighted the continued incarceration of elderly and terminally ill convicts despite their deteriorating health conditions and the lack of adequate medical facilities within prisons.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
The bench observed that the issue was not confined to individual cases but reflected a systemic failure requiring institutional reforms.
NALSA approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution after conducting a nationwide Special Campaign for Old Prisoners and Terminally Ill Prisoners between December 10, 2024, and March 10, 2025. The campaign involved prison visits, examination of medical records, and verification of inmates across the country to identify prisoners whose continued incarceration raised serious humanitarian concerns.
The campaign identified 5,393 prisoners falling within the categories of elderly or terminally ill inmates. Among them, 84 convicts above the age of 70 and 11 terminally ill convicts, spread across 17 States and the National Capital Territory of Delhi, had not yet approached the Supreme Court despite being convicted by their respective High Courts. According to NALSA, these prisoners constituted a particularly vulnerable class whose continued detention violated their rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court observed that prisons remain institutions governed by constitutional values and that lawful confinement does not suspend the guarantees of dignity, fairness, and humane treatment.
Describing prisons as places where State power is exercised in its most intrusive form, the Bench stated that the treatment of vulnerable prisoners serves as an important indicator of a constitutional democracy’s commitment to the rule of law and human dignity. The judges stressed that the right to life under Article 21 survives conviction and incarceration.
The judgment noted that prison statistics revealed a substantial number of elderly convicts and that custodial deaths were predominantly caused by illnesses and age-related medical complications, exposing structural inadequacies in prison healthcare systems.
The Bench noted that the Union Government had already issued an advisory in 2010 recommending policies for the treatment and compassionate release of terminally ill prisoners following directions issued by the Delhi High Court. However, despite the existence of this framework for over a decade, implementation across States remained inconsistent and dependent upon isolated initiatives rather than institutional compliance.
The Court observed that the persistence of large numbers of terminally ill and elderly prisoners in overcrowded prisons demonstrated a disconnect between policy commitments and actual implementation, resulting in a violation of Article 21.
The Supreme Court relied upon its earlier decisions granting relief to elderly and medically vulnerable prisoners, including permanent bail granted to Dr. P. Varavara Rao on medical grounds and interim release of a centenarian convict in Rasik Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal.
The Bench observed that these precedents establish that incarceration resulting in avoidable physical suffering and denial of adequate medical care ceases to remain constitutionally permissible. It further referred to the Law Commission’s 268th Report, which advocated a liberal approach towards bail for elderly and seriously ill prisoners.
The Court also relied upon international legal standards, including the UNODC Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs, the Nelson Mandela Rules, and other international human rights instruments.
It observed that prison systems are generally ill-equipped to provide end-of-life care and that many jurisdictions recognise advanced age and terminal illness as legitimate grounds for compassionate release. Such standards, the Court held, possess persuasive constitutional value in light of Article 51(c) of the Constitution, which encourages respect for international law.
Invoking its powers under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court directed every State and Union Territory to formulate a comprehensive compassionate release policy within three months.
Among the key directions are formulation of a uniform policy for early or premature release of elderly and terminally ill prisoners. Adoption of a clear definition of “terminal illness,” drawing upon the UNODC Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs. Constitution of independent Medical Boards at divisional and State levels to assess medical vulnerability. Establishment of transparent and time-bound procedures for considering applications for compassionate release. Mandatory review of such cases by Under Trial Review Committees (UTRCs). Coordination with legal services authorities, community healthcare institutions, and social welfare departments to facilitate rehabilitation. Complete integration of the compassionate release process with the National e-Prisons Portal, enabling digital registration, monitoring, tracking, automated alerts, and compliance reporting. Technical support from the Union Government, National Informatics Centre, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology for implementation. Filing of compliance affidavits before the Supreme Court within six months by the Union Government and all States and Union Territories detailing implementation status and the number of prisoners considered and released.
The judgment also annexes a structured framework proposed by NALSA.
For terminally ill prisoners, the process begins with identification by the prison medical officer, followed by review by the Under Trial Review Committee, certification by a District Medical Board, forwarding of eligible cases to the State Government, and intervention by the District Legal Services Authority wherever release is denied. For elderly prisoners, cases will similarly be reviewed through the Under Trial Review Committee before being forwarded for governmental consideration, with legal aid authorities stepping in where necessary.
Concluding the judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated that punishment must always remain anchored in proportionality, humanity, and the possibility of reform.
The Bench held that incarceration cannot be permitted to become institutional neglect incompatible with the values of a constitutional democracy. The matter has been directed to be listed on January 19, 2027, when the Court will examine compliance affidavits filed by the Union Government and all States and Union Territories regarding implementation of its directions.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: Children’s Court Must Independently Decide Whether Juvenile Should Be Tried as Adult: Supreme Court
