File photo: Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
Photo: Nk8595
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0
Judgment Intelligence
OtherCourt on its own motion v. State of Punjab and others
CWP-PIL-196-2026
- Court
- High Court of Punjab and Haryana
- Date of Decision
- 8 September 2026
- Bench
- Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India — right to life (fundamental right); Punjab Prison Rules (notified in 2022) — Rule 29.22
Final Outcome
Interim directions issued; the affidavits are to be served on the Amicus Curiae before the next date; adjourned to 15.09.2026, to be shown in the Urgent List (paras 14, 16-17). The matter is pending.
Source High Court of Punjab and Haryana (phhc.gov.in), decided 08.09.2026
Key holdings
- Punjab must clarify what action it has taken under Rule 29.22 of the Punjab Prison Rules in nearly four years (paras 5-6).
- Haryana must file a further affidavit on trained counsellors in its jails and on how its SOP has been implemented (para 9).
- The Union of India must place on record the methodology for bringing drug-dependent inmates to normalcy (para 10).
- PGIMER, Chandigarh, is requested to ensure an affidavit clearly outlining the medical protocol for such inmates (paras 12-13).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
In this suo motu case the Amicus Curiae pointed out from Punjab's earlier affidavit that 2540 inmates were already registered at an Out Patient Opioid Assisted Treatment Clinic when they entered jail, while 15768 inmates are presently drug dependent (para 1). The Amicus also cited Rule 29.22 of the Punjab Prison Rules, notified in 2022, which requires a scientific de-addiction programme (para 5). Haryana's affidavit stated that 1295 of its 27111 inmates are undergoing treatment for drug dependence, down from 1829, and that an SOP of 23.02.2026 provides for counselling and medical treatment (paras 7-8).
Court's Findings
The Court said that this prima facie indicates "a serious malaise": not only are those entering jail drug dependent, but there is a growth of almost 4-5 times in the number of inmates who become drug dependent after entry (paras 2-3). Without a strategy to bring them out of dependence, the inmates "will never be able to avail of the right to life" (para 4). It required Punjab to clarify what action it has taken in the nearly four years since the Rules were implemented (para 6). Haryana's affidavit was silent on whether trained counsellors are available in all jails where required; Haryana must clarify this, and how the SOP has been implemented, by a further affidavit (para 9). The Union of India must place on record the methodology for bringing such inmates to a state of normalcy, and PGIMER is requested to ensure an affidavit that clearly outlines the medical protocol (paras 10, 12-13). The Court called it a serious issue (para 15).
Legal Principle
In this interim order the Court observed that continued drug dependence among prison inmates, without any strategy to bring them out of it, would keep them from availing of the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution, and that the authorities must remain alive to their obligation to help them (paras 4, 15).