Suhas Chakma v. Union of India 2026 INSC 198 - Prisons - Open Correctional Institutions - Exclusion Of Women- Directions Issued
Constitution of India - Article 14,15,21- Exclusion and Under-representation of Women Prisoners from Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) - The exclusion of women from OCIs, or failure to transfer them despite being eligible for transfer from closed prisons to OCIs, amounts to blatant gender discrimination, violative of Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution of India, and also infringes upon their right to live with dignity as guaranteed under Article 21. Denial of access to OCIs deprives women prisoners of equal opportunity for rehabilitation and cannot be sustained in a constitutional order committed to equality, dignity and the transformative promise of justice. (Para 53-54)
Prisons - prisons as institutions of correction, where dignity, self-respect and social reintegration are not aspirational ideals but constitutional necessities. The emphasis on meaningful work, vocational training, payment of wages, humane living conditions, and maintenance of family ties reflects a coherent judicial philosophy that punishment must be tempered by compassion and directed towards reform. Open and semi-open correctional institutions, premised on trust and selfdiscipline, naturally align with this vision. (Para 39) Directions issued on (A) Under-utilisation of Existing OCI Facilities and Absence of OCIs in Several States and Union Territories (B) Exclusion and Under-representation of Women Prisoners from OCIs (C) Strict Eligibility Criteria and Inadequate Rehabilitative Avenues within OCIs (D) Lack of Uniformity and the Need for Common Minimum Standards for Governance and Management of OCIs across States and Union Territories (E) Expansion of Open Correctional Infrastructure (F) Compliance and Monitoring
Case Info
Case name and neutral citation
The judgment is titled Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors., in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1082 of 2020, with neutral citation 2026 INSC 198.
Coram
The judgment is authored by Sandeep Mehta, J., and the coram at the end shows it is signed by:
- Vikram Nath, J.
- Sandeep Mehta, J.
Judgment date
The judgment is dated 26 February 2026 (NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 26, 2026).
Key case laws and citations referred
The Court builds its constitutional and penological analysis on several leading precedents, including:
- D. Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1975) 3 SCC 185 – on prisoners retaining fundamental rights, especially under Article 21.
- Mohammed Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287 – emphasising humanisation of prisons and reformation as a constitutional imperative.
- Dharambir v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1979) 3 SCC 645 – on decriminalisation, restoration of dignity, meaningful work, wages and family contact as goals of imprisonment.
- Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608 – defining Article 21 to include the right to live with human dignity and condemning cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
- Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka, (1997) 2 SCC 642 – recognising open‑air prisons as a powerful instrument of reformation and urging their expansion.
- Vikram Deo Singh Tomar v. State of Bihar, 1988 SCC OnLine SC 450 – on the State’s duty to ensure dignified conditions, especially for women, and that Article 21 guarantees a quality of life consistent with human dignity.
- In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2018) 16 SCC 636 – earlier suo motu proceedings in which the Court had already directed States to adopt and implement Model Rules on open correctional institutions and address overcrowding.
- In Re: Contagion of COVID‑19 Virus in Prisons, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2020 – background context for the petitioner’s prayer to make the COVID‑19 High Powered Committees for decongestion permanent.
International instruments and soft law referred
The Court relies on and cites:
- United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 2015 (Nelson Mandela Rules)– especially
- Rule 4 (reintegration and reduction of recidivism through education, work, programmes);
- Rule 47 (purposes of imprisonment and reintegration);
- Rule 89 (classification and open prisons relying on self‑discipline).
- United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non‑Custodial Measures for Women Offenders, 2010 (Bangkok Rules) – particularly
- Rule 40 (gender‑responsive classification and planning for women’s early rehabilitation and reintegration);
- Rule 45 (use of home leave, open prisons, halfway houses and community‑based programmes for women).
Domestic statutes, model laws and policy documents referred
The judgment discusses and relies upon:
- Constitution of India – especially Articles 14, 15, 15(3), 21, 22 and 39A.
- Model Prison Manual, 2016, particularly Chapter XXIII – “Open Institutions”, including:
- Para 23.01–23.02: purpose of open and semi‑open institutions;
- Para 23.03 ff.: selection, exclusions and the Selection/Classification Committee;
- Paras 23.16, 23.18–23.21: minimum standards, work, wages, family contact.
- Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, especially:
- Section 2(21) – definition of “Open Correctional Institution”;
- Section 50 – enabling framework for establishing and regulating open and semi‑open correctional institutions.
- Model Uniform Rules for the Administration of Open Correctional Institutions (referred to in the 2018 prison‑conditions case and again here).
- National Crime Records Bureau report “Prison Statistics India, 2023” – cited for nationwide overcrowding data and occupancy percentages.
- Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPR&D) study, “A Study of the Functioning and Impact of Open Prisons on Rehabilitation of Prisoners” by Dr. Murali Karnam – cited for shortcomings and best‑practice recommendations.
- Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority study, “The Open Prisons of Rajasthan” – used to show comparative costs and staff ratios between open and closed prisons.
Very brief three‑sentence summary
The Supreme Court holds that open correctional institutions (OCIs) are central to the constitutional mandate of dignified, reformative and rehabilitative imprisonment, yet are gravely under‑utilised, unevenly administered, and largely inaccessible to women prisoners across India. It issues a detailed set of binding directions requiring every State and Union Territory to establish or expand OCIs and open/semi‑open barracks, rationalise eligibility criteria, ensure gender‑inclusive access, build meaningful rehabilitative infrastructure (work, education, healthcare, family integration), and adopt time‑bound action plans. To secure uniformity and accountability, the Court creates a national High‑Powered Committee under Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Retd.) to draft Common Minimum Standardsfor OCIs, and directs each High Court to monitor State‑level compliance through suo motu proceedings and State Monitoring Committees.