After Undertrial Was Strangled In Ajmer Cell With Offline CCTV, Rajasthan HC Orders Statewide Jail Camera Installation And Repairs Within 3 Months

In brief

The question

Whether the State had substantially complied with the Court’s earlier directions concerning prison conditions, security, infrastructure, and prisoner welfare, or whether further oversight and corrective measures were required

The court held

The Court closed and disposed of the batch, while constituting a State-Level Monitoring Committee chaired by the District Judge concerned, with the Director General of Prisons, Member Secretary of RSLSA, and Director of DOIT as members.

It also directed

It directed DOIT and RISL to address prison CCTV maintenance and installation, including specified camera requirements, repairs, and storage systems, within three months; required an SOP and institution-wise logs for periodic surprise searches; directed the State to assess and recruit Challani Guards and ensure prisoner wages consistent with Phool Kumari; required functional sanitary vending machines in women’s prisons and a policy on meetings between closely related convicts; and ordered notification of the custodial-death relief scheme within three months.

The Committee must meet quarterly to review compliance with these directions and the Court’s earlier directions.

01Facts

The Rajasthan High Court considered a batch of public interest litigations concerning prisoners’ rights and welfare, prison infrastructure, security, and custodial conditions.

pp. 5–6, 10–12

The proceedings began with suo motu cognizance in 2012 of reports alleging that criminal activity was being conducted from Ajmer Jail; subsequent petitions and inmate communications raised additional issues, including prison hygiene, wages, women prisoners’ facilities, custodial deaths, and open correctional institutions.

pp. 5–6, 10–12

In 2026, the Court sought a status report after undertrial prisoner Jagan Gurjar was found dead in Ajmer’s High Security Jail; the State reported that the CCTV camera covering his cell had been offline since 24 June 2026, before the incident on 29 June 2026.

pp. 7–9

The Court also considered the State’s compliance report and the Amicus Curiae’s concerns about outstanding deficiencies across prisons.

pp. 10–12

02Issues

i.Whether the State had substantially complied with the Court’s earlier directions concerning prison conditions, security, infrastructure, and prisoner welfare, or whether further oversight and corrective measures were required

pp. 9–12

ii.Whether the pending PIL proceedings should remain open, or could be disposed of subject to a continuing monitoring mechanism and further compliance directions

pp. 12–15

03Law Applied

The Court relied on its earlier directions in the present proceedings, including the directions dated 27 January 2016 and 5 March 2018, concerning prison conditions and searches for mobile phones.

pp. 10, 13–14

It referred to the Rajasthan Prisoners Rules, 2022, Parole Rules, 2021, and Shortening of Sentences Rules, 2026 as reforms reported by the State.

p. 10

On prisoner wages, it invoked Phool Kumari v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, which the petitioners had relied on in seeking wages equivalent to those under the MNREGA scheme; the Court directed that prison wages remain consistent with that precedent.

p. 6, 14

The judgment did not set out a separate statutory test for prison monitoring or decide criminal liability for the Ajmer death; it treated the incident as under investigation.

pp. 12–13

04Reasoning

The Court considered the reported enactment of updated rules and infrastructure improvements evidence of substantial institutional reform, but found that the Ajmer death and reported shortfalls in CCTV coverage, maintenance, staffing, searches, and women’s-prison facilities showed that implementation remained incomplete and required ongoing oversight.

pp. 10–13

Because the specific death was under active investigation, the Court did not determine responsibility for it.

pp. 12–14

Instead, it concluded that keeping the consolidated PILs pending indefinitely was unnecessary, provided that their closure was accompanied by a structured monitoring mechanism and time-bound remedial directions.

pp. 12–14