The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday expressed deep concern over the underutilisation of open correctional institutions (OCIs) across the country, describing it as a “very serious issue” in the context of rising overcrowding in conventional jails. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, highlighted the need for states to effectively leverage these semi-open or open correctional facilities to alleviate pressure on traditional prisons while promoting the rehabilitation of inmates.

Open correctional institutions were introduced in India as a reformative measure aimed at facilitating the social reintegration of prisoners. These facilities, also referred to as semi-open prisons, are designed to offer a controlled environment with minimal security restrictions, thereby enabling inmates to participate in work, education, and skill-development activities. Unlike conventional jails, which are heavily secured and primarily custodial, OCIs focus on rehabilitation and prepare prisoners for a smooth transition back into society.

During the proceedings, the Supreme Court also addressed a specific application filed by the Kerala governmentseeking permission to allot 257 acres from a total of 457 acres of land for multiple purposes. The state proposed to dedicate 180 acres for the BrahMos missile project, 45 acres for the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), and 32 acres for the establishment of a National Forensic Sciences Laboratory. Senior advocate K Parameshwar, appearing as amicus curiae in the matter related to jail congestion, supported the state’s application, emphasizing the national and security significance of the proposed projects. Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the Centre, underscored that the BrahMos initiative was a “national defence project.” The bench ultimately allowed the application, granting the Kerala government permission to proceed with the land allotments.

However, the court used the hearing as an opportunity to draw attention to a broader, systemic issue affecting correctional administration nationwide—the persistent underutilisation of OCIs. The bench noted that while states are struggling with severe overcrowding in conventional prisons, a significant portion of OCI capacity remains untapped. The amicus curiae pointed out that at least six to seven states are operating these facilities at less than 50 to 60 percent capacity, indicating a substantial mismatch between available rehabilitation resources and actual use.

A particularly critical concern raised was the exclusion of women prisoners from some OCIs. In three to four states, women inmates are reportedly not allowed entry into these open facilities, potentially due to perceived security risks. The Supreme Court observed that security concerns are understandable, as these institutions operate with minimal guard presence—often only two or three personnel. Nevertheless, the bench emphasized that states must find practical solutions to ensure women prisoners also benefit from the rehabilitation-oriented environment of OCIs.

The amicus highlighted that the Union government has issued guidelines and a draft model prison manualencouraging states to make full use of open correctional institutions. Letters have consistently been sent to all states urging them to utilise their OCIs to ease congestion in conventional jails and improve the rehabilitation of prisoners. Despite these efforts, the bench noted, state-level compliance remains uneven and insufficient, necessitating a more proactive mandate from the apex court.

The Supreme Court reiterated that underutilisation of available correctional infrastructure is unacceptable, particularly in a country grappling with chronic jail overcrowding. According to official data, many prisons operate at over 120 to 150 percent of their intended capacity, creating inhumane conditions and straining prison management. OCIs, by contrast, offer a humane alternative, providing prisoners with greater autonomy, access to work and vocational programs, and opportunities for rehabilitation while simultaneously alleviating the load on conventional jails.

The bench stressed that rehabilitation and decongestion are intertwined objectives. Open correctional institutions not only provide better living conditions for inmates but also contribute to lowering recidivism rates by equipping prisoners with employable skills and preparing them for reintegration into society. By failing to utilise these facilities, states inadvertently compromise both human rights standards and long-term societal safety.

Addressing the amicus, the bench remarked, “Now, the amicus has highlighted the issue of underutilisation of the OCI facilities in the country. It is a very serious issue because on the one side, the states are facing the difficulty of overcrowding of prisons and on the other hand, the OCIs are available and are not being utilised.” The court further queried the Additional Solicitor General about the Centre’s efforts to frame a national policy to standardise and mandate the use of OCIs. In response, the amicus confirmed that model rules and manuals had been issued, and states had been repeatedly urged to utilise these correctional institutions.

The bench made it clear that effective utilisation of OCIs is not optional but a critical component of prison administration. “Whatever is there, that should be utilised,” the judges emphasized, noting that states should take responsibility for operationalising these facilities to their full potential. The court indicated that a detailed mandate on the matter would be issued, particularly given the reluctance of several states to proactively respond to the Centre’s directives.

Open correctional institutions are intended to function with minimal security but maximum rehabilitative support. Inmates in these facilities can engage in vocational training, educational programs, and community service, which prepare them for life post-incarceration. By contrast, overcrowded conventional prisons often fail to provide adequate opportunities for reform, thereby perpetuating cycles of crime and incarceration. The Supreme Court’s observations highlight the pressing need for a paradigm shift in correctional management, focusing on rehabilitation, efficiency, and humane treatment.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s remarks underscore the dual challenges facing India’s correctional system: severe overcrowding in conventional prisons and underutilisation of open correctional institutions designed to alleviate this problem. By drawing attention to these issues, the apex court has sent a clear message to state governments that OCIs are a vital resource for both decongesting prisons and promoting rehabilitation. The court’s forthcoming mandate is expected to provide detailed guidance on operationalising these facilities, ensuring that all inmates—including women—have access to open correctional programs and that states leverage OCIs to improve prison conditions, reduce overcrowding, and strengthen the overall effectiveness of the criminal justice system.