State Duty to Expand Open Prison Infrastructure per Supreme Court Directives and Consideration of Parole Extensions.

The petitioner, a convict whose criminal appeals were dismissed up to the Supreme Court, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

She sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash a 2025 order by jail authorities and a Writ of Mandamus directing her transfer to an Open Jail in Jabalpur.

She requested a relaxation of Rules 5(1)(c) and 5(2)(1) of the M.P. Open Colonies Rules, 2009, citing her old age, medical condition, and status as the sole caregiver for her disabled son.

During proceedings, the State filed an affidavit confirming that the implementation of Supreme Court guidelines regarding open correctional infrastructure is currently under consideration by the State Government.

1. Whether the State Government is mandated to expand open correctional infrastructure and establish open/semi-open barracks in accordance with Supreme Court directives.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of her current parole in light of the State’s pending decision on open jail infrastructure.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's writ jurisdiction.

The precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India and Ors. (WP No. 1082/2020) mandates that all States and Union Territories must expand Open Correctional Infrastructure (OCI) by establishing new OCIs and creating open/semi-open barracks within existing closed prisons to modernize correctional services.

The Court observed that the Respondent (State) is legally "duty bound" to comply with the directions issued in the Suhas Chakma case.

By reviewing the affidavit filed by the State, the Court noted that the Government has already initiated the process of finalizing a proposal for open correctional facilities, which is expected to be completed within 60 days.

Because the State formally committed to a timeline for implementing the relevant infrastructure changes, the Court reasoned that the primary grievance regarding the lack of open jail consideration was being addressed administratively.

Regarding the petitioner's immediate custody, the Court acknowledged her humanitarian grounds but noted her conviction is final; hence, it directed the use of existing administrative remedies (parole extension applications) rather than judicial interference in the sentence execution.

The Court directed that the Petitioner may file an application for an extension of her parole (currently expiring on August 12, 2026) before the competent authority. If filed, the Collector of Chhatarpur is ordered to decide the application via a speaking order in accordance with the law within 7 days.