The Delhi High Court has issued a contempt notice to the director general of prisons after finding that the city’s authorities had made no meaningful progress on Supreme Court directions to expand and strengthen open correctional institutions, or open prisons. The court also warned Delhi’s chief secretary that contempt proceedings could follow if its time-bound directions were not implemented.
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma sought a response from the prisons DG by November 18. The bench said there had been “total disregard” of directions issued by the Supreme Court and the High Court, observing that “the matter has not travelled an inch ahead”.
The proceedings arose from a suo motu public interest litigation concerning semi-open and open prisons in Delhi. The High Court had earlier directed the Delhi government to file an affidavit detailing the steps taken to comply with the Supreme Court’s February 26 directions to states, including Delhi, to establish and expand open prison facilities.
The court took exception to the affidavit being filed by a junior jail officer rather than the prisons DG, as previously directed. It had also required the affidavit to include a flowchart showing the progress made since February. During the hearing, the bench asked whether the Delhi government had framed or amended rules as required by the Supreme Court.
Government standing counsel Sanjay Lao, appearing on instructions from officials, said amendments or modifications to the rules were not required. When the counsel sought more time after the bench asked whether this position should be recorded, the court questioned the administration’s handling of the matter.
The court also raised concerns about the functioning of a monitoring committee established on the Supreme Court’s orders. It was informed that the committee had met only once in Delhi. The bench said that when the Delhi State Legal Services Authority chairperson called a meeting, the government secretary had deputed a junior official instead of attending through an officer of the rank required by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s directions had specified that an officer not below the rank of secretary should participate in such monitoring meetings. The High Court criticised the government’s response as an “eyewash” and said it was answerable to the Supreme Court for monitoring compliance.
Open and semi-open prisons are correctional institutions designed to provide eligible prisoners with greater movement, work and rehabilitation opportunities under supervised conditions. In the Delhi case, however, the immediate dispute before the court is not over the operation of a particular facility but over whether the administration has taken the institutional, regulatory and administrative steps required by the Supreme Court.
The High Court’s next immediate milestone is the prisons DG’s response, which must be filed by November 18. The court will then examine the government’s compliance with the directions on open prisons, the monitoring committee’s functioning and the responsibilities of senior officials.
