Mandatory establishment and expansion of Open Correctional Institutions to ensure prisoner rehabilitation and gender-equal reformative justice.

The Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution highlighting chronic overcrowding in Indian prisons, which operates at an average occupancy of 120.8%, with some states exceeding 150%

The petition sought permanent monitoring mechanisms to ensure humane conditions

In 2024, the Supreme Court shifted focus to "Open Correctional Institutions" (OCIs) as a sustainable solution for decongestion and rehabilitation

Data revealed that OCIs are significantly cheaper (Rs. 500/month per prisoner vs. Rs. 7,094 in closed prisons) and promote self-reliance, yet remain severely under-utilised or non-existent in many States

1. Whether the persistent under-utilisation and absence of OCIs in several States/UTs violate the reformative and rehabilitative objectives of penology

2. Whether the exclusion of women prisoners from OCIs constitutes gender-based discrimination under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution

3. Whether there is a need for Common Minimum Standards to ensure uniformity in OCI management across India

The Court applied Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and dignity even to convicts (*D. Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik v. State of A.P.*)

It relied on the reformative theory of punishment, emphasizing that prisons should be correctional houses rather than sites of soul-aching cruelty (*Mohammed Giasuddin v. State of A.P.*)

The principle of "individualization of penalties" through open prisons (*Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka*)

International standards: the *Nelson Mandela Rules* (Rule 4, 47, 89) regarding social reintegration

The *Bangkok Rules* (Rule 40, 45) regarding gender-responsive treatment of women prisoners

Statutory guidance was drawn from the *Model Prison Manual, 2016* and the *Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023*

The Court observed that while OCIs are constitutionally and fiscally superior (costing approximately 1/7th of closed prisons), executive apathy has led to "rank indifference" in their implementation

Analyzing the data, the Court found that strict eligibility criteria (requiring up to 21 years in closed cells) and the treatment of OCIs as mere "manual labour camps" defeat their reformative purpose

The Court specifically condemned the blanket exclusion of women from OCIs in 9 states as a violation of Articles 14 and 15, noting that security concerns cannot be a "perpetual justification" for denying the right to reformation

It reasoned that because "prisons" is a State subject, the lack of uniformity in wages and facilities necessitates a central "High-Powered Committee" to draft binding "Common Minimum Standards" to prevent arbitrary treatment

States without OCIs must develop protocols for their establishment or create open barracks within closed prisons

All States must stop discriminatory practices and ensure women’s access to OCIs through restructuring or dedicated facilities

A "High-Powered Committee" headed by Justice (Retd.) S. Ravindra Bhat is constituted to formulate "Common Minimum Standards" within six months

High Courts are directed to register suo motu proceedings to monitor compliance as a "continuing mandamus"

The matter is listed for status review on September 1, 2026