Rape, POCSO Convicts Not Totally Ineligible for Open Air Camps, but No Automatic Right: Rajasthan High Court

Division Bench decision taking the 'restrictive view' that convicts under Section 376 IPC or the POCSO Act may be treated as ineligible for an Open Air Camp solely on the gravity of the offence (para 2.1, footnote 4). The Full Bench held that it does not lay down the correct law and overruled it (para 16).

Division Bench decision taking the 'restrictive view' on Rule 3(d) of the Rules of 1972 (para 2.1, footnote 5). The Full Bench held that it does not lay down the correct law and overruled it (para 16).

Division Bench decision taking the 'restrictive view' on Rule 3(d) of the Rules of 1972 (para 2.1, footnote 6). The Full Bench held that it does not lay down the correct law and overruled it (para 16).

The single-judge order (Anoop Kumar Dhand J.) that noticed the two conflicting lines of Division Bench decisions and referred the question of law on Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972 to a Larger Bench; the Full Bench answers that reference (paras 1, 2.2-2.3, footnote 7).

Noted as the decision which, as the referring judge held, allowed a writ petition without noticing the restrictive view; the State's SLP against it was dismissed on 11.11.2024 (para 2.2, footnote 8).

The Supreme Court cited the Rajasthan Rules of 1972 as best practice, stressed the role of open correctional institutions and, by direction C(i) in para 73, required States to rationalise eligibility criteria with individualised, reasoned assessments (paras 3, 3.2-3.3, 4). The Full Bench framed its answer in line with that direction (para 15).

Relied on for the description of open prisons as an instrument of reformative prison management and of the individualisation of penalties with a view to social readjustment (para 3, quoting paras 47-48).

‘Ordinarily’ means ‘in the large majority of cases but not invariably’ (para 8.1); relied on in holding that Rule 3(d) is not an absolute bar (para 11).

‘Ordinarily’ indicates what is normally done and does not make a provision mandatory (para 8.2); relied on in para 11. Citation as printed in footnote 12; the extract quoted in para 8.6 cites the case as (1974) 1 SCC 128.

‘Ordinarily’ allows a deviation from the requirement that can be justified by reasons (para 8.3); relied on in para 11.

‘Ordinarily’ means that the thing is to be done unless there are good reasons for not doing so (para 8.4); relied on in para 11.

‘Ordinarily’ may mean ‘normally’, admits an exception and must be read in context (para 8.5); relied on in para 11 (printed there as 'J.D. Orcochem Ltd.').

‘Ordinarily’ identifies the normal rule while leaving room for an exceptional case and is not a cast-iron rule; hence Rule 3 cannot be read as ‘shall never be eligible’ (para 8.6); relied on in para 11.

Prisoners retain constitutional rights subject to the restrictions inherent in lawful incarceration; so a statutory rehabilitative scheme must be administered consistently with dignity, fairness and the reformative purpose of imprisonment (para 13).