01Facts
The High Court considered a batch of PILs concerning prison conditions, prisoner welfare, security, infrastructure and custodial deaths in Rajasthan.
¶ 1–5 · pp. 5–6The proceedings began after reports that a prisoner in Ajmer Jail had directed an extortion and firing incident from inside the jail; the Court later considered prisoner representations and related petitions on matters including prison wages, hygiene and women prisoners’ rights.
¶ 1–5 · pp. 5–6In 2026, the Court sought a status report following the death of undertrial Jagan Gurjar in Ajmer’s High Security Jail.
¶ 6–9 · pp. 7–12The report stated that the CCTV camera covering his cell had been offline since 24 June 2026; the State also reported broader CCTV, staffing and other compliance gaps across prisons.
¶ 6–9 · pp. 7–12The Court reviewed the State’s compliance status against its prior directions and the Amicus Curiae’s submissions.
¶ 9 · pp. 9–1202Issues
i.1. Whether the State had substantially complied with the Court’s earlier directions concerning prison conditions and prisoner welfare, and what further measures were required to address outstanding deficiencies.
¶ 9, 11–13 · pp. 9–13ii.2. Whether the pending PILs should remain open for continuing judicial supervision or could be disposed of subject to a monitoring mechanism.
¶ 12 · p. 1303Law Applied
The Court relied on its earlier directions dated 27 January 2016, including directions concerning tap-water supply and hygiene, and its order dated 5 March 2018 concerning intensive searches for mobile phones.
¶ 9, 13–14 · pp. 10–15It also referred to the Rajasthan Prisoners Rules, 2022, the Parole Rules, 2021, and the Shortening of Sentences Rules, 2026, as measures reported by the State.
¶ 9(a) · p. 10On prisoner wages, it relied on Phool Kumari v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, 2012 Cr.L.J. 1261 (S.C.), directing the State to ensure that wages remain consonant with the Supreme Court’s mandates.
¶ 5, 13(iv) · p. 6, 14The judgment identifies no separate statutory test for closing the PILs; it requires continuing institutional monitoring to accompany their disposal.
¶ 12–14 · pp. 13–1504Reasoning
The Court acknowledged that the proceedings had produced substantial institutional reforms, updated prison rules and infrastructure upgrades, but treated the Ajmer death and the reported CCTV and staffing deficiencies as evidence that compliance remained incomplete and required ongoing oversight.
¶ 9, 11 · pp. 9–13Because the Ajmer incident was under investigation and reforms were continuing, the Court considered indefinite retention of the PILs unnecessary, provided that a permanent monitoring mechanism was established and specific outstanding measures were time-bound.
¶ 11–14 · pp. 12–1505Holding
The Court closed and disposed of the batch of PILs, while constituting a State-Level Monitoring Committee chaired by the District Judge(s) concerned, with the Director General of Prisons, the Member Secretary of RSLSA and the Director of DOIT as members.
¶ 13–16 · pp. 13–15It directed DOIT and RISL to address jail CCTV maintenance and installation, including specified cameras at Bikaner and Jaipur, within three months; required an SOP and institution-wise logs for prison searches; directed the State to assess and recruit Challani Guards and ensure compliant prisoner wages; required functional sanitary-napkin vending machines and a policy on meetings between closely related convicts; and ordered notification of the Custodial Death Relief Scheme within three months.
¶ 13–16 · pp. 13–15The Committee must meet quarterly to review compliance with these directions and the Court’s 27 January 2016 directions.
¶ 13–16 · pp. 13–15Original Court PDF
PEOPLES WATCH RAJASTHANvsSTATE OF RAJASTHAN
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
