Prison Transfers must be Reasoned and Proportionate, cannot ignore Family Hardship, rules High Court

In a significant procedural challenge concerning prisoner transfer and family access rights, the Rajasthan High Court stepped in to examine an order that shifted an undertrial inmate from Sri Ganganagar in northern Rajasthan to Dungarpur in the State’s far south, nearly 800 to 1,000 kilometres away. The petition questioned whether prison authorities could relocate an inmate without recording reasons, particularly when the move placed severe hardship on his family, who regularly visited him and lacked the means to undertake such long-distance travel.

The controversy began when the petitioner, lodged in Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar, was abruptly transferred to Dungarpur by order dated 03.09.2025. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the decision was taken without citing any security threat or administrative necessity. His family, residing in Sri Ganganagar and belonging to a modest socio-economic background, would now be compelled to travel across the length of Rajasthan merely to meet him.

It was further pointed out that closer alternatives, Central Jails at Bikaner and Udaipur, were available, yet authorities chose the farthest possible location without explanation.

The Court found the action indefensible. Observing that the transfer lacked any recorded justification, the bench held that the order “is manifestly arbitrary in nature” and imposes an “unreasonable and onerous burden” on the prisoner’s family. The Court underscored that compelling relatives to traverse nearly a thousand kilometres for routine prison visits was “wholly impracticable and unjust.”

Holding the order devoid of proportionality and reasons, the Court quashed the transfer dated 03.09.2025. At the same time, it directed jail authorities to ensure the inmate does not misuse phone facilities to threaten anyone and to put necessary safeguards in place.