Directions by Supreme Court to Formulate Policy for Early Release of Old and Terminally Ill Prisoners

                                                         

 The Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition of the National Legal Services Authority raising grave and systematic concerns regarding the continued incarceration of convicted prisoners who are above 70 years or are terminally ill.

    Due to the severely deteriorating health conditions and the manifest inadequacy of medical and care giving facilities within prison compelled the Legal Services Authority to file writ petition before Supreme Court. The Authority, in its petition, highlighted that prisoners continue to remain confined, resulting in prolonged physical suffering and erosion of human dignity. It contended such state of prisoners amount to direct imprisonment of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India .

    The present state of the Prisoner in Prisons came to sight when NALSA conducted a nationwide special campaign for Old Prisoners & Terminally Ill Prisoners in furtherance of its statutory mandate under the legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The Act provides for laying down policies and frame mechanisms for making legal services easily accessible to the weaker sections of society. 

    It is through this mechanism that NALSA identified a distinct class of prisons whose continued incarceration, despite advanced age or terminal illness, warrants immediate constitution scrutiny, because their condition renders them vulnerable to neglect, suffering and deprivation of dignity within the prison system.

    Therefore, the NALSA sought directions by way of present petition for grant of bail and release of old and terminally ill prisoner subject to the satisfaction of the respective leaned trial Courts. The object of such direction is to ensure that punishment does not degenerate into cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and that the right to live with dignity is preserved even within the prison system.

    Some of the material grounds placed before the Supreme Court are:

1.    According to the National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB) published on 31st December 2022, it was evident that a non-trivial proposition of the prison population comprises elderly individual many of whom are likely to be afflicted with age-related morbidities and chronic medical conditions.

2.    The report revealed a significant number of custodial deaths that are attributable to illness and age related complications.

3.    These vulnerabilities are heightened due to ill-equipped specialized healthcare facilities inside prisons.

4.    The punishment even when lawfully imposed must not transgress the boundaries of human dignity as provided in the instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. The International instruments prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of person in custody.

5.    The NALSA sought the release of 93 year old woman prisoner lodged in a prison in Karnataka due to the intervention of District Legal Services Authority.

    After hearing the grounds put forth by NALSA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued notice to all respondents, Union of India and all States and Union territories to file counter affidavit.

SUBMISSIONS OF NALSA

    Learned Counsel Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar representing NALSA submitted that NALSA has locus standi to file writ petition for enforcement of fundamental rights of vulnerable and marginalized sections of soceity.

    It was also submitted that NALSA has filed writ petition purely to discharge public duty and has also no personal interest in the outcome of proceeding interest in the outcome of the proceeding and it is discharging its obligation to under take social justice litigation as provided under Section 4(d) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.

    The Counsel continued incarceration of terminally ill and elderly prisoners constitute the direct infringement of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India because the prolonged detention on condition of severe physical suffering cannot be regarded as fair, just or reasonable, Learned Counsel submitted taking reliance from the judgment in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India and Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration (1978). In those cases, the Court had expressed right against inhuman and degrading punishment and recognized the right of prisoners to health, humane environment and proper medical treatment.

    The Counsel emphasized, the incarceration of persons suffering from terminal illness or those of advanced age in overcrowded and medically ill-equipped prisons will subject them to needless suffering which will render such detention constitutionally impermissible.

    The Counsel also submited that the NALSA has undertaken to revise its Standard Operating Procedure for Under Trial Review Committees in order to identify and address cases of terminally ill and elderly prisoners.

    It was also urged that premature or compassionate release of terminally ill and elderly prisoners has gained acceptance in international practices and many nations have adopted the humane policies recognizing that continued incarceration of such prisoners serves no legitimate penologycal purpose. 

    Lastly, it was contended that the failure of State authorities to devise and implement effective mechanisms for the protection and early release of terminally and elderly prisoners constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which warrants judicial intervention and constitutional redress.

    State of Bihar and Himachal too submitted their respective submissions regarding the total numbber of aged and terminally ill prisoners and the procedure for premature release. 

   ANALYSIS

    After hearing and observing the campaign for Old Prisoners and Terminally Ill Prisoners and also going through factual report placed before the Supreme Court, Hon'ble Court summed up the issue that campaign implemented across the State and Union Territories uneven and largely dependent on individual initiatives rather than systematic compliance.

    The Report had expressly recommended mandatory bail where the accused was suffering from a life-threatening condition and adequate medical care is inevitable in custody.

 These recommendation reflected an evolving constitutional understanding of bail not merely as a procedural discretion but as a substantive safeguard intrinsically linked to the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Supreme Court notice

The Court also mentioned the International legal instruments such as the UNODC Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules) and the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) Report where it recognize that prisons systems are structurally ill-equipped to provide adequate end-of-a-life or palliative care, and that compassionate or early release mechanisms are essential to safeguard the inherent dignity of such prisoners.

The Hon'ble Court analysed that in the absence of structured, transparent and consistent release mechanisms or palliative care within the institutional framework, the continued incarceration of elderly and terminally ill prisoners will raise fundamental questions about proportionality, dignity and the moral legitimacy of punishment and thus the case calls for a systematic recalibration of criminal justice system that is the system which demands constitutionally significant determinant for humane treatment of prisoners.


The Hon'ble Court said in the event of continued incarceration of terminally ill prisoners due to absence of structured transparent and consistent release mechanism or palliative care within the institutional framework raises for question about proportionality, dignity and moral legitimacy of punishment.

So, at this juncture, it is the responsibility of the respective State Governments and Union Territory Administration for framing, adopting and effectively implementing laws and policies in respect of prisioners as empowered under Schedule VII List II of the Indian Constitution.


So, under the separation of powers, this Court cannot assume the role of a legislature or embark upon law-making in areas expressly reserved for the elected branches of government. But it can interpret enforce and give meaningful effect to Constitutional guarantees while remaining mindful of the limits of institutional authority - Court said.


The Court was also of the view that the Court cannot remain a passive spectator where legislative or executive in action results in persistent or systematic violations of fundamental rights.


Therefore, the Court, in exercise of the powers under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution of India, proceeded to issue the following directions to the States and Union Territories in order to give meaningful effect to the constitutional guarantee of life with dignity and to ensure that the Criminal justice system does not inflict needless suffering upon those whose vulnerability is manifest:-

A. All States and Union Territories shall, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment, formulate and notify a comprehensive policy for early or premature release of prisoners who are of advanced age and/or are terminally ill. Such policy shall be framed in consultation with the respective State Legal Services Authorities so as to ensure institutional coordination and effective identification of eligible prisoners.

B. The said policy shall clearly define the eligibility criteria and procedural framework for consideration of release. In particular, the policy shall expressly provide a clear and uniform definition of “terminal illness”. For this purpose, States and Union Territories may adopt, with such modifications as deemed appropriate, the definition contained in the UNODC Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs (2009), which describes terminal illness as “a condition where there is no reasonable medical possibility that the patient’s condition will not continue to degenerate and result in death.”

C. The policy shall mandate constitution of independent Medical Boards at the Divisional and State levels for objective medical assessment and certification of terminal illness or advanced medical vulnerability. Such Boards shall comprise suitably qualified medical professionals and shall conduct periodic reviews of identified cases.

D. The policy shall prescribe a time-bound, transparent and accessible procedure for submission, examination and disposal of applications for early or compassionate release. Procedural delays which result in prisoners spending their final months or years under incarceration shall be avoided, and all decisions shall be reasoned and subject to judicial review.

E. The policy shall be integrated with the functioning of Under Trial Review Committees (UTRCs), and such committees shall be mandatorily required to periodically review cases of prisoners who are terminally ill, of advanced age, or suffering from any other condition leading to physical incapacitation, as the case may be, and to recommend appropriate legal action including bail, parole, remission or release.

F. States and Union Territories may adopt the framework proposed by NALSA, as annexed to the present judgment as Schedule A, or modify the same to suit local administrative and legal requirements, provided that the core principles of dignity, proportionality and humane treatment are preserved.

G. The policy shall also provide for coordination with community health services, social welfare departments and legal aid institutions to ensure continuity of medical care and social support for prisoners released under compassionate grounds.

H. The entire process for consideration of applications for early, premature or compassionate release shall be mandatorily integrated with the National e-Prisons Portal. Every application shall be digitally registered and assigned a unique tracking number, and the portal shall record each stage of processing, including submission of the application, medical evaluation, reports of the prison authorities, recommendations of the Medical Board and the Under Trial Review Committee, decisions of the competent authority, and the reasons therefor. The e-Prisons portal shall facilitate time-bound processing through automated alerts and monitoring of statutory or prescribed timelines, ensure transparency and accountability in decision-making, generate periodic compliance reports, and enable effective supervisory oversight by the State Government, the State Legal Services Authority, and other competent authorities, while maintaining appropriate safeguards for the confidentiality and privacy of prisoners’ medical and personal information.

I.The Union of India shall, through the Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Home Affairs and the National Informatics Centre (NIC) under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), provide all necessary technical support, digital infrastructure, software development, maintenance and capacity-building assistance to the States and Union Territories to facilitate effective compliance with the directions issued by this Court. The National Informatics Centre shall ensure that the e-Prisons portal is suitably configured, upgraded and maintained to enable seamless implementation of the framework directed herein, including digital processing, monitoring and tracking of applications for early, premature or compassionate release, and shall extend all necessary assistance to the States and Union Territories to ensure uniform, timely and effective implementation of these directions.

J. The Union of India through the Ministry of Law and Justice, and all the States and Union Territories shall file a compliance affidavits before this Court within six months, indicating the status of compliance with the directions issued hereinabove as well as the status of the formulation and implementation of the aforesaid policy, including data regarding the number of prisoners identified, released, and those presently under consideration.

K. A copy of this judgment shall be forthwith transmitted by the Registry of this Court to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India; Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India; the Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India; and the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories, for ensuring due compliance with the directions issued hereinabove.

L. The Registry is directed to implead the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Gujarat, Karnataka, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Uttarakhand, as well as the Union Territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Lakshadweep and Puducherry, as party-respondents in the present proceedings.

The Court has fixed 19th Janurary 2027 for consideration of compliance affidavit to be filed by the States and Union Territories.


National Legal Services Authority vs Union of India & ORS. (Writ Peitition (Criminal) Nos 162 of 2025)

Also Read: Doctrine of Eclipse in Indian Constitutional Law - Explanation.