Prison PILs Closed With Monitoring Committee: Rajasthan HC

Prison Reforms Need Perpetual Vigilance, Not Episodic Compliance: Rajasthan High Court Closes Prison PILs With Monitoring Committee

Published: 27 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court closed a batch of public interest litigations on prison conditions, running since 2008, holding that its directions had produced substantial reforms but that an undertrial’s alleged murder in the High Security Jail, Ajmer showed the need for perpetual vigilance (paras 11-12). It constituted a State-Level Monitoring Committee headed by the District Judges and gave directions, mostly time-bound, on CCTV cameras, phone searches, guards, women’s prisons and a custodial death relief scheme (paras 13-14).

Key holdings

A State-Level Monitoring Committee, headed by the District Judges concerned as Chairman, with the Director General of Prisons, RSLSA’s Member Secretary and the Director, DOIT, must meet quarterly to review compliance (paras 13(i), 14).

DOIT and RISL have three months to install all proposed CCTV cameras, including 275 at Bikaner and 60 at Jaipur, repair defective ones and make storage and backup functional (para 13(ii)).

The Prison Department must frame an SOP for surprise mobile-phone searches with institution-wise logs; Challani Guard needs must be assessed within three months, and prisoners’ wages must follow Phool Kumari (para 13(iii)-(iv)).

Sanitary vending machines must work in all women’s prisons; the policy on meetings of closely related convicts is due within two months and the custodial death relief scheme within three (para 13(v)-(vi)).

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

Brief Facts

The Court took suo motu cognizance in 2012 after newspaper reports that a history-sheeter lodged in Ajmer Jail had allegedly directed an extortion and firing incident in Jaipur by mobile phone (paras 2-3). Prisoners’ letters, relying on Phool Kumari, sought minimum wages for prisoners (paras 4-5). The batch also covered hygiene, women prisoners, custodial death, the release of women and old prisoners, and open correctional institutions (para 9). On 2 July 2026 the Court called for a report on the alleged murder of an undertrial in the High Security Jail, Ajmer on 29 June 2026; the State reported that the camera covering his cell had gone offline on 24 June (paras 6-8).

Court's Findings

The State’s report said 258 of the 319 cameras at the Ajmer jail were working and that the Superintendent had repeatedly reported UPS damage and server shutdowns (para 8). The Advocate General pointed to substantial compliance with 45 directions of 27 January 2016, new prison, parole and sentence-shortening rules and 70% implementation of video-conferencing; the amicus curiae answered that aggregate figures were inadequate, citing inspection reports of 29 October 2025 (no camera at Mahila Bandi Sudhar Grih, Ajmer; 16 of a proposed 275 at Bikaner; 37 of 147 not working at Jodhpur and Udaipur), guard numbers behind overcrowding and phone searches without verifiable logs (para 9). The Court found that its exercise since 2008 had yielded substantial institutional reforms, updated Prison Rules and infrastructure upgrades, but the Ajmer incident showed that implementation needs perpetual vigilance and adequate technical support, not merely episodic compliance (para 11). With the incident under investigation and the State pursuing reforms, keeping the dockets pending served no purpose; closure had to come with a robust, continuous monitoring mechanism, as the amicus had sought (para 12).

Legal Principle

Long-running prison public interest litigations can be closed once the Court’s directions have produced institutional reforms that the State is pursuing, but closure must be accompanied by a robust, continuous monitoring mechanism, because implementing prison directions needs perpetual vigilance and technical support rather than episodic compliance (paras 11-12).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

Closure moves compliance from the High Court’s docket to a Monitoring Committee that must meet quarterly to review this judgment’s directions and those of 27 January 2016 (paras 13(i), 14). Lapses in a particular jail may usefully be brought to the notice of the District Judge, whom the Court charged with monitoring compliance (para 13(i)). Deadlines are short: two months for the policy on meetings of related convicts, three for the CCTV work, the guard assessment and the custodial death relief scheme (para 13). The open correctional institutions petition closed on the State’s statement that they function (para 9); on Open Air Camp eligibility, see the same day’s Full Bench ruling in Gangaram, which requires an individualised, reasoned assessment.

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

Precedents Relied Upon

Phool Kumari v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihad, New Delhi 2012 Cr.L.J. 1261 (S.C.)
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5, 13
The prisoners' letters relied on it in praying for a committee to provide minimum wages to prisoners equivalent to the MNREGA Scheme (para 5, footnote 1); the Court directed that prisoners' wages remain in consonance with the mandates laid down in it (para 13, direction (iv)). Name as printed ('Tihad').
Shashi Alias Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Jurmani v. State of Maharashtra M.A. No. 183/2026 in SLP Crl 12690/2025
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9
Noted in the Advocate General's statement that video-conferencing (70% implemented) is under the active consideration of the Supreme Court in this matter (para 9, item (a), footnote 2).
Suhas Chakma v. Union of India WP 1082/2020
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9
D.B. CWP (PIL) No. 5997/2026 on Open Correctional Institutions was registered pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions in this case; the State said such institutions are actively functioning in Rajasthan (para 9, item (f), footnote 3).