The Tripura High Court recently expressed strong disapproval of the State Government's failure to adhere to the Supreme Court's directives concerning the assessment of prison infrastructure and the formulation of an action plan for establishing Open Correctional Infrastructure (OCI). A division bench, comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit, observed that the State had not completed the mandated assessment or prepared the requisite action plan by the Supreme Court's stipulated deadline of May 26, 2026.
The High Court's observations arose in the context of a suo motu writ petition, *Court on its own Motion v. The State of Tripura*, bearing Case No. Suo Moto WP (C) No. 01 of 2026. The bench noted that the State Government had not undertaken the type of assessment directed by the Supreme Court in *Suhas Chakma v. Union of India and Others* nor had it developed an action plan within the prescribed timeframe. Instead, the State had proposed to conduct a study of Open Correctional Infrastructure models in other States.
Supreme Court's Mandate on Open Correctional Infrastructure
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, had issued specific directions to States and Union Territories regarding prison reforms. These directions, particularly outlined in Para E of the judgment, mandated the identification of suitable locations for the establishment of new Open Correctional Infrastructures. Furthermore, the Supreme Court directed the identification of existing closed prisons where open or semi-open barracks could be created to facilitate a more reformative approach to incarceration. Following these identifications, States were required to prepare time-bound action plans. These plans were to meticulously specify timelines for implementation, allocate necessary budgets, and define capacity targets for the proposed open and semi-open facilities.
High Court Criticises State's 'Laid Back Attitude'
The Tripura High Court critically assessed the State's proposal to study OCI models in other States, concluding that such an approach would inevitably lead to further delays in the implementation of the Supreme Court's clear and time-bound directions. The bench underscored the urgency of the matter, stating, "This is unfortunate. The necessary speed and urgency with which the matter requires to be considered seems lacking. Such a laid back attitude is not warranted." This observation highlighted the judiciary's expectation of prompt and decisive action from the State Government in matters of prison reform, which directly impact fundamental rights and the administration of justice.
The Advocate General, Mr. S M Chakraborti, along with Mrs. Pinki Chakraborty, Advocate, represented the respondents in the matter. Despite their submissions, the High Court remained firm in its stance regarding the State's non-compliance.
Operative Directions and Future Course
In light of the persistent non-compliance, the Tripura High Court issued a clear directive to the respondents. The State Government has been ordered to ensure complete compliance with Para E of the Supreme Court's judgment by September 25, 2026. This directive reiterates the High Court's commitment to upholding the Supreme Court's mandate and ensuring that the State takes concrete steps towards modernising its correctional facilities.
The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on September 28, 2026, to review the progress made by the State Government in complying with these directions. The High Court's firm stance underscores the imperative for States to treat prison reform with the seriousness and urgency it demands, aligning with the broader national objective of improving correctional administration.