New Delhi: In a significant move aimed at overhauling the Indian prison system, the Supreme Court of India has issued a comprehensive set of directions to all States and Union Territories to expand and reform Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs), commonly known as open-air prisons.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that open prisons must function as meaningful institutions for rehabilitation and social reintegration, rather than just "labour camps." The Court emphasized that these reforms are essential to uphold the constitutional guarantees of equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), and the right to live with dignity (Article 21).

The Supreme Court’s judgment is rooted in the "reformative philosophy" of criminal justice. The Court noted that while traditional "closed" prisons focus on confinement, open prisons allow eligible inmates to live with more freedom, often with their families, and engage in productive work. This system helps prisoners prepare for a normal life after their release, reducing the chances of them returning to a life of crime.

The Court pointed out a "startling" economic advantage of open prisons. Using data from Rajasthan, the bench noted that the State spends nearly ₹3,000 per month on a prisoner in a closed jail, whereas the expenditure on a prisoner in an open jail is only about ₹50 per month. This massive difference highlights that open prisons are not only better for human rights but also much lighter on the public exchequer.

The Supreme Court issued several mandatory directions to ensure that OCIs are utilized to their full potential:

1. Establishment of New Open Prisons

The Court found that several states, including Goa, Haryana, Jharkhand, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Telangana, currently have no functional open prisons. These states have been directed to assess the feasibility and necessity of establishing such institutions immediately.

For Union Territories like Chandigarh, Lakshadweep, and Puducherry, the Union Government has been asked to either build new facilities or create a mechanism to transfer eligible prisoners to open jails in neighboring states.

2. Ending Discrimination Against Women and Transgender Prisoners

One of the most critical aspects of the judgment is the focus on gender equality. The Court observed that many states currently exclude women from open prisons.

Three-Month Deadline: All States and UTs must restructure existing open jails to allocate space for women within three months.
Protocol for Transfer: If women are already legally allowed in open jails, a protocol for their timely identification and transfer must be created within one month.
Inclusive Access: The Court explicitly stated that security concerns cannot be a general excuse to deny women access to reformative facilities. It also called for the inclusion of transgender prisoners in these frameworks.

3. Rationalizing Selection Criteria

The Court noted that many existing open jails are underutilized, with some running at less than 50% capacity. To fix this, the bench directed states to "rationalize" their eligibility criteria. Instead of strict, arbitrary rules, the transfer of a prisoner to an open jail should be based on:

The nature of the offense.
The prisoner's conduct in jail.
Their potential for reform.
Their readiness to rejoin society.

The Court warned that open jails should not be treated as "reward centers" or "labour camps" but as places for genuine social reintegration.

4. Grievance Redressal and Monitoring

To ensure these directions are followed, the Court ordered:

Monitoring Committees: Each State must form a committee headed by the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA).
High Court Oversight: Every High Court in India has been asked to register a suo motu (on its own motion) case to monitor the implementation of these reforms in their respective states.
Grievance Cells: Inmates must have a way to raise concerns regarding their work conditions, wages, and healthcare within the open jails.

The Supreme Court urged other states to learn from the successful models of Rajasthan and Maharashtra. In Rajasthan, the "Sanganer Open Camp" is often cited as a global example where prisoners live in small houses with their families, go out to work in the city during the day, and return in the evening. This model has shown that trust-based policing can lead to lower escape rates and higher successful rehabilitation rates than traditional high-security cells.

India’s prisons are notoriously overcrowded, with many jails operating at 150% to 200% of their intended capacity. By shifting eligible, low-risk prisoners to open correctional institutions, the burden on the traditional prison system can be significantly reduced.

The Court observed that its previous directions in the 2018 case (In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons) had not yielded enough results, which is why it has now taken a much stricter stance with specific deadlines and monitoring mechanisms.

The Supreme Court’s directions mark a turning point in Indian penology. By moving away from a purely "punitive" (punishment-based) approach to a "restorative" (healing-based) one, the judiciary is pushing for a more humane and efficient legal system.

The message from the bench is clear: incarceration should not mean the end of a person's dignity or their potential to contribute to society. As states begin to implement these directions, the landscape of Indian prisons is set to change from dark, overcrowded cells to open spaces of hope and reform.

Case Details:

Case Title: Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: WP (C) No. 1082/2020
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta