Suhas Chakma Versus Union Of India And Ors
The landmark case, Suhas Chakma Vs Union Of India And Ors, Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made a significant decision for the right of the prisoners in accordance with the constitutional mandate of equality, non discrimination and right to live with dignity as guaranteed under Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also
In the present case, while dealing with the persistent problem of overcrowding in prison across the country, top Court analysed on the Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) Report as directed to the police in the case In Re: Inhuman conditions in 1382 Prisons (2018), that OCIs though conceived as living embodiments of reformative justices, their functioning across the country remains fragmented and uneven. The deficiencies revealed are not merely administrative in nature but touch upon the core constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality and rehabilitation under Articles 14, 15,21, 22 and 39A of the Constitution of India. The patterns of under-utilisation, restricted access and uneven governance of OCIs, thus compel this Court to look beyond episodic lapses and to reflect upon whether our penal institutions, in the present form, remain faithful to the constitutional promises that even those who err are not beyond redemption
The Court had earlier in its order, dated 17th
May, 2018 had passed order to put on record wherein such Open Correctional
Institutions are shown to be functioning in different States and to jointly
prepare and circulate a questionnaire to obtain information from all the States
in respect of the Status and functioning of the Open Correctional Institutions.
The Supreme Court, in the year 2018, In In Re: Inhuman conditions in 1382 Prisons,
directed all the States and Union
Territories to take immediate steps to align their respective prison rules with
the Uniform Rules for the administration of Open Correctional Institutions, and
duly adopt, notify and implement the said rules, along with undertaking
appropriate measures for the effective implementation and strengthening of the
framework regarding Open Correctional Institutions within their respective
jurisdictions.
While dealing with the issue of overcrowding in Re: Inhuman
Conditions in 1382 Prisons, the Hon’ble Court had already took note that the
Open Correctional Institutions constitute one of the most effective humane and
sustainable responses to congestion in closed prisons, while simultaneously
advancing the objectives of reformative and rehabilitation penology.
Therefore, this Court in the present case analysed that
there was a persistent failure to adopt and expand what was acknowledged as one
of the most effective solutions to overcrowding in prisons. Reformative theory
of punishment reflects a troubling disconnect between constitutional mandate
and executive action – Supreme Court said.
Hence, the Hon’ble Court was compelled to revisit
the earlier issue and to lay down structured and enforceable directions, so
that Open Correctional Institutions are no longer treated as peripheral
experiments, but are firmly embedded as integral components of a humane,
reformative and constitutionally compliant correctional system.
The present writ petition under Article 32 filed
by Suhas Chakma against the Union of India in the year 2020 and the issues
raised are the conditions of confinement in the existing person system that
reflects on the nature and purpose of punishment itself.
The petition highlighted the excessive prison
populations, far exceeding sanctioned capacities, had resulted in inhumane and
degrading living conditions for inmates, thereby infringing their fundamental
rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Thus the instant writ petition raised are concerning the
persistent problem of overcrowding in prisons across the country.
The petitioner, Suhas Chakma had sought directions
in the nature of Mandamus for creation of effective and permanent mechanisms to
address and alleviate prison overcrowding, including decongestion measures
transfer of inmates and formulation of structural avenues to ensure humane
conditions of detention particularly during Covid-19 pandemic.
Learned Amicus Curiae, Mr K. Parmeshwar submitted
that already Open Correctional Institutions was engrafted by Union of India but
despite their existence, these are not being utilised. He also submitted that
strengthening the Open Correctional Institutions would not only alleviate
overcrowding in prisons but will also further the rehabilitation of prisons and
address social inequities faced by them.
In view of the foregoing analysis, the Apex Court, in the
present case, passed necessary directions in order to ensure that Open
Correctional Institutions across the country can be made meaningful and
effective institutions so as to fulfil the constitutional, reformative and
rehabilitation mandate, and to secure timely and uniform implementation of the
necessary corrective measures by the Union of India, States and Union
Territories, so that Open Correctional Institutions operate as effective
instruments of dignity, equality, and rehabilitation and social reintegration
within the criminal justice system.
Some of the directives are under the following
heads :
1. Under-Utilisation of existing Open
Correctional Institutions facilities and absence of Open Correctional Institutions
in several States and Union Territories;
2. Exclusion and Under-representation of
Women Prisoners from OCIs;
3. Strict Eligibility Criteria and
Inadequate Rehabilitative Avenues within OCIs;
4. Lack of Uniformity and the Need for
Common Minimum Standards for Governance and Management of OCIs across States
and Union Territories;
5. Expansion of Open Correctional
Infrastructure; and
6. Compliance and Monitoring.
Since the direction issued by the Supreme Court in
Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons have not yielded any meaningful or
positive results so to ensure the present case does not suffer the same fate, now
in the present case, the top Court directed High Courts are play an active role
in overseeing an ensuring effective implementation of the directions issued.
Some of the directions issued are:
a. High courts are directed to register suo
motu Writ Mandamus petition for the purpose monitoring compliance with the
present judgment within their respective jurisdiction particular with respect
to the establishment, functioning and expansion of the Open Correctional
Institutions.
b. Constitute a monitoring committee for the
management of Open Correctional Institutions to be headed by the Executive
Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority or his nominee which shall
consist of members namely
(i) Home Secretary of the State/Union Territory
or his nominee not below the rank of Additional Secretary,
(ii) A senior Officer, of the Prisons Department
not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General, to be nominated by the Home
Department of the State or Union Territory,
(iii) Where
the Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee is a nominee of the Executive Chairman
of the State Legal Services Authority, such nominee shall be entitled to
appropriate remuneration and logistical support, as may be determined by the
Executive Chairman, State Legal Services Authority in consultation with the
State Government,
(iv) The
State Monitoring Committees shall be responsible for: -
a. Ensuring compliance
with the directions issued by this Court;
b. Overseeing the utilisation, functioning and
expansion of OCIs;
c. Facilitating the
timely identification and transfer of eligible prisoners from closed prisons to
OCIs; and
d. Periodically
reviewing progress and addressing systemic impediments in the implementation of
the directions issued by this Court.
(v) Each State and Union Territory shall
constitute the aforesaid Committee within a period of four weeks from the date
of this judgment.
(vi) The State Committees shall submit status
reports to the concerned High Court on regular quarterly intervals, detailing
the steps taken towards compliance with the directions issued herein, the
utilisation and expansion of OCIs, and any difficulties encountered in
implementation of the directions issued by this Court. The first such status
report shall be placed on record before the concerned High Court on or before
21st August, 2026.
(vii) The High Courts, through their respective
Registrar General, shall compile and forward consolidated report to this Court
once every year, summarising the compliance status of States and Union
Territories, progress achieved, best practices identified, and persistent gaps
requiring policy or executive intervention. The first such consolidated annual
report shall be placed on record before this Court on or before 31st March,
2027.
In conclusion, the Hon’ble top Court emphasised that the
aforesaid directions are issued to ensure that the constitutional mandate of
equality, non-discrimination and the right to live with dignity, as guaranteed
under Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India, is meaningfully
realised in the administration of prisons across the country. They also ensure
that OCIs function as effective instruments of rehabilitation, reformation and
social reintegration in accordance with the constitutional vision, the settled
jurisprudence of Supreme Court, and the domestic and international normative
frameworks governing incarceration.
Case:
Date of Judgment: 26 February,
2026
0 Comments