Rajasthan HC Full Bench: Section 376, POCSO Convicts May Be Considered For Open-Air Camps Only on Exceptional Grounds After Individual Review

The reference arose from conflicting Division Bench decisions on whether prisoners convicted under Section 376 IPC or the POCSO Act could be transferred to a Rajasthan Open Air Camp under Rule 3(d) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972.

A Single Judge, noting the conflicting authorities, referred the question to a Full Bench.

The Full Bench considered the cases of Gangaram and connected prisoners in resolving the interpretation of Rule 3(d).

Rule 3(d) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 provides that specified classes of prisoners are “ordinarily” ineligible; Rule 4 sets out eligibility conditions, while Rules 6 and 14 provide for selection and Advisory Committee assessment.

“Ordinarily” denotes the normal rule, not an inflexible bar, while permitting departure for justified exceptional cases; the Court relied on Kailash Chandra v. Union of India, Krishan Gopal v. Shri Prakashchandra, Union of India v. Majji Jangamayya, Union of India v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah, Commissioner of Customs v. J.D. Orgochem Ltd., and Union of India v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan.

Under Article 14, discretion must be non-arbitrary and based on relevant material.

The Court also applied the reformative purpose of open prisons and the Supreme Court’s direction in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India for individualised, transparent and reasoned assessments based on offence classification, reformative potential, institutional conduct and readiness for reintegration.

The Full Bench read Rule 3(d) alongside Rule 4 and held that treating the exclusion as absolute would deprive “ordinarily” of effect, while treating it as an unrestricted discretion would undermine the Rule’s ordinary exclusion.

Accordingly, a conviction under Section 376 IPC or the POCSO Act does not by itself foreclose consideration, but the prisoner must establish special or exceptional circumstances for departure from the ordinary rule.

The Advisory Committee must assess the individual case, including institutional conduct, reformative potential, risk, readiness for reintegration, and the nature and gravity of the offence; victim age and case facts are relevant, particularly in POCSO cases.

The assessment and its reasons must be recorded and consistent with Article 14 and the Suhas Chakma directions.

The Advisory Committee may admit a suitable prisoner after an individualised, reasoned assessment and may impose protective conditions, particularly to safeguard other inmates and children.

The contrary Division Bench decisions in Rajendra @ Goru, Bhag Singh @ Bhagirath, and Vipin @ Vinkesh @ Vika were overruled, and the matters were remitted to the appropriate Division Bench for consideration under the Full Bench’s ruling.