New Delhi, March 26 Highlighting the "structural exclusion" of female prisoners from open correctional institutions or "open jails," a top official from the Law Commission said on Thursday that equal access to the reform pathway is not a concession but a requirement of sound administration in a constitutional democracy.
Anju Rathi Rana, the member secretary of the 23rd Law Commission, said that the Supreme Court, in its judgment last month, addressed the governance and expansion of open correctional institutions (OCIs).
She stated that women prisoners cannot be excluded from open jails, and that such exclusion—whether embedded in statutory rules or arising from administrative practice—violates the constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.
Rana, a former Union law secretary, told
"Ensuring that women prisoners have equal access to this pathway to reform is not a concession but a requirement of sound administration in a constitutional democracy. Reform is meaningful only when it applies without discrimination," she noted.
The responsibility now lies in steady and structured implementation, the senior Indian Legal Service officer underlined.
In Suhas Chakma vs Union of India, the top court addressed the governance and expansion of OCIs, commonly referred to as open prisons. It stated that women prisoners cannot be excluded from OCIs, and that such exclusion—whether embedded in statutory rules or arising from administrative practice—violates the constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.
As the court observed, "The deficiencies revealed are not merely administrative in nature but touch upon the core constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and rehabilitation under Articles 14, 15, 21, 22, and 39A of the Constitution of India."
Open prisons are not peripheral to jail administration. They embody a reformative model of custody built on graded liberty and responsibility.
Eligibility is assessed on objective criteria under applicable rules, including conduct and other correctional considerations. Properly implemented, OCIs serve a dual function: they promote rehabilitation and facilitate reintegration, while also contributing to the rational management of prison populations, Rana said, citing the apex court.
A central concern before the court, she noted, was the structural exclusion of women prisoners from OCIs in several jurisdictions. In some states, eligibility frameworks operated in a way that excluded women. In others, facilities for women were not created, even where open regimes existed for similarly placed male prisoners.
"The consequence was unequal access to a reformative pathway. The court held that such exclusion cannot be justified merely on grounds of administrative design or institutional convenience," she said.
Importantly, the judgment does not dilute legitimate considerations of safety and security. It recognises that prison administration must operate with due regard to order and discipline. However, it also clarifies that generic or speculative security concerns cannot justify categorical exclusion.
Constitutional guarantees do not stop at the prison gate. Prison administration, though primarily a state responsibility, must operate within the framework of equality and dignity, she explained.