Asha Ram's Open Air Camp Plea: Decision in 3 Weeks

Asha Ram's Open Air Camp Plea: Rajasthan High Court Directs Decision in Three Weeks Under Full Bench Ruling

Asha Ram @ Ashumal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2026:RJ-JD:55046-DB Decided 5 November 2026

Published: 6 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

In Asha Ram @ Ashumal v. State of Rajasthan (2026:RJ-JD:55046-DB), the Rajasthan High Court disposed of a life convict's plea for transfer to an Open Air Camp. The Advisory Committee had refused him because of his conviction under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. Noting the Full Bench answer that such prisoners are not totally ineligible but have no automatic right, the Bench recorded the State's statement that a decision would be taken within three weeks, and directed it accordingly (paras 2.1, 7-11).

Key holdings

The Full Bench answer of 26 October 2026 governs Open Air Camp requests by prisoners convicted under Section 376 IPC or the POCSO Act (para 7).

Such prisoners are not barred outright, but they have no automatic right to an Open Air Camp (para 7).

The Advisory Committee must record reasons after an individualised assessment and may impose protective conditions (para 7).

The Bench made no finding on the petitioner's eligibility and left the decision to the competent authority within three weeks (paras 8-11).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur on 25 April 2018 and sentenced to life imprisonment; on 27 May 2026 his appeal was partly allowed, but his convictions under Sections 370(4), 376(2)(f), 506 and 354A IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act were upheld (para 2). Claiming more than 13 years in custody with remission and satisfactory jail conduct, he sought transfer to an Open Air Camp; the Advisory Committee refused on 9 September 2025 because of the Section 376(2)(f) conviction (paras 2, 2.1). The State relied on Rules 3(a), 3(d) and 3(h) and pointed to a separate life sentence in Gujarat, under appeal (paras 5, 5.1).

Court's Findings

The Bench began by setting out the parameters laid down by a Full Bench of the High Court in D.B. Criminal Reference No. 1/2024, decided on 26 October 2026 (para 7). The Full Bench held that Rule 3(d) read with Rule 4 of the 1972 Rules neither imposes an absolute bar nor confers an unrestricted entitlement on a prisoner convicted under Section 376 IPC or the POCSO Act, and that the word 'ordinarily' must be given operative meaning (para 7). In its answer, the nature and gravity of the offence, including the age of the victim, are legitimate considerations, and the Advisory Committee must make an individualised, reasoned assessment of conduct, reformative potential, risk and readiness for reintegration; it may impose conditions to protect other inmates, particularly children (para 7). Asked whether any decision had been taken after that judgment, the State said the competent authority would decide within three weeks in its light (para 8). On that statement the Bench sent the order to the competent authority for an administrative decision and expressed no view on whether the petitioner should be transferred (paras 9-11).

Legal Principle

A prisoner convicted under Section 376 IPC or the POCSO Act is not totally ineligible for transfer to an Open Air Camp but has no automatic right to it; the Advisory Committee must decide each case by an individualised, reasoned assessment, in which the gravity of the offence and the age of the victim are legitimate considerations (paras 7-9).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For prisoners and their counsel, this order shows how the Full Bench answer in Gangaram v. State of Rajasthan is being applied: a refusal of Open Air Camp resting only on a conviction under Section 376 IPC or the POCSO Act is open to challenge, but the remedy is an individualised, reasoned decision by the Advisory Committee, not an order of transfer (paras 7-9). Counsel should place the prisoner's conduct, reformative progress and any special circumstances before the Committee; the gravity of the offence and the age of the victim remain legitimate considerations (para 7). Compare Janak Singh v. State of Rajasthan on the reformative purpose of release schemes for life convicts.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, D.B. Criminal Reference No. 1/2024 D.B. Criminal Reference No.1/2024, judgment dated 26.10.2026 2026:RJ-JP:40987-DB
Followed Discussed at ¶ 7, 8
A prisoner convicted under Section 376 IPC or the POCSO Act is not totally ineligible for transfer to an Open Air Camp but has no automatic right; the Advisory Committee must make an individualised, reasoned assessment in which the gravity of the offence and the age of the victim are legitimate considerations (paras 7-9).
Ajit Singh v. State of Rajasthan D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 52/2022, decided on 11.03.2022
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 3, 4.1, 4.4
Cited by the petitioner, who said a convict sentenced for an offence under Section 376 IPC was there directed to be transferred to a suitable Open Air Camp (paras 3, 4.1, 4.4).