[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Xxxxxx vs In Re- State Of Assam And 11 Ors on 25 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010058952026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)(Suo Moto)/1/2026
XXXXXX
XX
VERSUS
IN RE- STATE OF ASSAM AND 11 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006
2:STATE OF NAGALAND
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
NAGALAND CIVIL SECRETARIAT
KOHIMA- 796001
3:STATE OF MIZORAM
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
MIZORAM SECRETARIAT
AIZAWL-796001
4:STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
CIVIL SECRETARIAT
ITANAGAR-791111
5:THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
6:THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND
HOME DEPARTMENT
Page No.# 2/6
NAGALAND CIVIL SECRETARIAT
KOHIMA-797004
7:THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF MIZORAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
MIZORAM SECRETARIAT
NEW CAPITAL COMPLEX
AIZAWL-796001
8:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HOME DEPARTMENT
CIVIL SECRETARIAT
ITANAGAR-791111
9:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS
ASSAM
ASSAM PRISONS HEADQUARTERS
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-781022
10:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS
NAGALAND
DIRECTORATE OF PRISONS
JAIL COLONY
KOHIMA-797001
11:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS
MIZORAM
DIRECTORATE OF PRISONS
BABUTLANG
DAWRPUI
NEAR AIZAWL POLICE STATION
AIZAWL-796001
12:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DIRECTORATE OF PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATION
JULLY VILLAGE
ITANAGAR-79111
For the petitioners : Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Sr. Advocate/
S.C., Gauhati High Court
assisted by Mr. T. Gogoi, Advocate
Page No.# 3/6
For the respondents : Mr. D. Nath,
Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam for the
Respondent Nos.1, 5 and 9
Mr. A. Borua,
Govt. Advocate, Mizoram for
Respondent Nos.3, 7 and 11
Mr. A. Chandran,
Sr. Govt. Advocate, Arunachal
Pradesh for respondent Nos.4, 8, 12
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
25-03-2026
(Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.)
We have heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior
Advocate/Standing Counsel for the Gauhati High Court.
Open correctional institutions, which are commonly called open
prisons, are not functioning in reality. This fact was taken note of by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a PIL lodged by an activist Suhas Chakma
[WP(C) No.1082/2020]. The Supreme Court was of the view that the
institutions have a constitutional duty to protect the dignity of the
prisoners, give them equality of opportunity and help them reintegrate
into society. Open correctional institutions are such places where there
Page No.# 4/6
could be transformation of the prisoners.
Open prisons are special places where selected prisoners lived in a
more open and normal environment. They can go out during the day to
work, learn skills and stay with their families in some cases and slowly get
ready to return to the normal life after their sentence. The idea is to
reform and rehabilitate.
It was found by the Supreme Court in the afore-noted PIL that the
orders passed in "Inhuman Conditions in 1382 prisons" case had not
resulted in any significant improvement in the situation. It was, therefore,
thought that a clear and practical direction be issued addressing the
problem in a targeted way. One of the most important directions of the
Supreme Court in this regard was creation of a strong monitoring system
so that the orders towards such target are not ignored. A direction was
given to every High Court in India to immediately register a "suo motu"
writ petition in order to keep a continuous watch on whether the State is
following the directions of the Supreme Court and at the same time,
ensure that every State and Union Territory have set up a special
Monitoring Committee for the management of the open correctional
institutions, which Committee has to be headed by the Executive
Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority, or a former High Court
Judge and would include senior officials from the Home Department and
the Prisons Department.
The mandate of the Committee would be to make sure that open
prisons are built where needed; that eligible prisoners are identified and
transferred quickly and that the institutions function properly. In case of
Page No.# 5/6
any problem, there should be an immediate resolution.
The Supreme Court has also fixed a strict timeline for the States to
form this Committee within four weeks and submit their first progress
report to the High Court by 21 st August, 2026 and for the High Courts to
send a yearly summary report to the Supreme Court starting from 31 st
March, 2027.
The entire purpose is to turn open prisons into real tools of dignity,
equality, rehabilitation and social reintegration instead of letting them
remain unused or ineffective.
Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam accepts
notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 5 and 9; Mr. A. Borua, learned
Government Advocate, Mizoram accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent Nos.3, 7 and 11 and Mr. A. Chandran, learned Senior
Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh accepts notice on behalf of
the respondent Nos.4, 8 and 12.
Notice upon the respondent Nos.2, 6 and 10 shall be served through
the learned Government Advocate of Nagaland.
The learned Advocates appearing for the afore-noted respondents
shall respond to this petition immediately after complying with the
directions of the Supreme Court.
Let separate copies of the brief be furnished by the Registry to the
respective Advocates who have accepted notice on behalf of the
afore-noted respondents.
The detailed affidavits must be filed by the learned Advocates for
Page No.# 6/6
the respondents within a period of three weeks.
Re-notify on 22.04.2026.
It is expected that by that time the Monitoring Committee so
directed by the Supreme Court shall be constituted.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
