Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K.Parameshwar, Sr. Adv. (AC) Ms. Kanti, Adv. Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Adv. Ms. Raji Gururaj, Adv. Mr. Shreenivas Patil, Adv. Ms. Veda Singh, Adv. Mr. Prasad Hegde, aDv. Mr. Sai Kaushal Nuthalapati, Adv. Mr. Adit, Adv. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv. (AC) Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Ms. Jay Jaimini Pandey, Adv. Mr. Dwaipayan Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Nitika Dubey, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Dubey, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Rajan K Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Terdal, Adv. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Karol, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv. Mr. Ketan Paul, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv. Mr. Riddhi Bose, Adv. Ms. Rachita Chawla, Adv. Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Adv. Ms. Rishi Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, AOR Ms. Saubhagya Sundriyal, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Adv. Dr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Payal Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Keshav Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Ms. Eliza Barr, Adv. Ms. Disha Singh, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Neha Singh, Adv. Mr. Akshay Girish Ringe, AOR Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi, D.A.G. Ms. Inderdeep Kaur Raina, Adv. Mr. Ranjeet Saw, Adv. Ms. Tamanna Kavdia, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv. Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Mayur Goyal, Adv. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Maha Singh Rathore, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Varun Varma, Adv. Mr. Mahi Pal Singh, Adv. Mr. Anupam Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Dhananjay Yadav, Adv. Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Adv. Mr. Manan Verma, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Tandon, Adv. Ms. Mansi Diwakar, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Vats, Adv. Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR

Summary of Judgment

The Supreme Court of India, in Writ Petition (C) No. 1082 of 2020 (Suhas Chakma v. Union of India), delivered on 26 February 2026 by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, addresses prison overcrowding (occupancy at 120.8% nationally, exceeding 150% in several states) through enhanced utilization, establishment, and standardization of Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Background and Proceedings: Filed under Article 32 seeking decongestion measures, the petition evolved to focus on OCIs as humane, cost-effective solutions for rehabilitation amid ongoing monitoring of prison conditions. (!) (!) (!) (!)

Key Findings: - Under-utilization and Absence: Existing OCIs operate at low occupancy (e.g., 6% in Delhi, 92% in Rajasthan); absent in states like Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Jharkhand, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim; open barracks also underused. (!) (!) (!) - Women Prisoners: Excluded or under-represented (ineligible in 9 states; 0% transfer in Delhi, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu; 30% occupancy in Kerala women's OCI). (!) (!) (!) - Eligibility and Rehabilitation: Rigid criteria (4-21 years prior incarceration); limited to agriculture; inadequate skills training, family integration, wages (Rs.40-548/day), healthcare, education. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Lack of Uniformity: Variations in rules across states. (!) - Cost-Effectiveness: OCIs far cheaper (Rs.49.60/prisoner/day in Rajasthan vs. Rs.333.12 in closed prisons; 78x less annually). (!) (!) (!)

Constitutional Basis: Anchored in Articles 14, 15, 21 for dignity, equality, rehabilitation; aligns with Model Prison Manual 2016 (Ch. XXIII), Model Prisons Act 2023. (!) (!) (!)

Operative Directions: - Utilization/Absence (A): States without OCIs (e.g., Haryana, Telangana) to develop protocols for new OCIs/barracks; fill vacancies in 3 months. (!) (!) - Women Inclusion (B): Protocols for allocation/transfer; amend exclusionary rules; gender-sensitive mechanisms. (!) - Eligibility/Rehabilitation (C): Rationalize criteria to reformative potential; diversify training, wages, family ties; grievance mechanisms; action plans. (!) - Uniform Standards (D): High-Powered Committee (chaired by Retd. J. S. Ravindra Bhat; incl. Home Secys., BPR&D) to frame Common Minimum Standards within 6 months. (!) (!) - Expansion (E): Assess/plan new OCIs/barracks with timelines/budgets. (!) - Monitoring (F): State Committees (SLSA head + Home Secy. + DIG Prisons); High Courts to register suo motu petitions for quarterly oversight; annual reports to SC. (!) (!)

Conclusion: Directions enforce reformative justice; Registry to circulate judgment; listed for reports on 01.09.2026 & 31.03.2027. (!) (!) (!) (!)