Suo Motu v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

[2026:RJ-JP:40722-DB]

REPORTABLE

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

Judgment reserved on: 30/09/2026
Judgment delivered on: 26/10/2026
Judgment (full) uploaded on: 26/10/2026

(1) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2808/2012
CNR: RJHC020261762012 | URN: CW / 4482U / 2012

Suo Motu ----Petitioner
Versus
(1) The State of Rajasthan through its Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. (2) The Principal Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. (3) The Principal Secretary to the Government, Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. (4) The Secretary to the Government, Department of Technical Education, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. (5) The Director General (Prisons) State of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (6) The Director, Local Bodies and Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (7) The Deputy Director General, National Informatics Center, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents

Connected With

(2) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11417/2008
CNR: RJHC020528192008 | URN: CW / 19398U / 2008

“Peoples Watch Rajasthan” through Kishan Gurjar, Legal Officer, Peoples Watch Rajasthan (Human Rights Organisation) ----Petitioners
Versus
(1) State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. (2) The Principal Home Secretary, Jaipur. (3) The Director General, Prisons, Ghat Gate, Jaipur. (4) The Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. ----Respondents

(3) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5463/2015
CNR: RJHC020609252015 | URN: CW / 9690U / 2015

Suo Moto ----Petitioner
Versus
(1) The State of Rajasthan, through Home Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. (2) Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur. ----Respondents

(4) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17462/2017
CNR: RJHC020588762017 | URN: CW / 30020U / 2017

Suo Motu ----Petitioner
Versus
(1) The State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (2) The Director General of Police, State of Rajasthan, Police Headquarter, Jaipur. (3) The Director General (Prisons) State of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (4) Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (5) Principal Secretary, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (6) Member Secretary, Rajasthan Legal Services Authority, Jaipur. (7)-(41) The Chief Judicial Magistrates, Ajmer, Alwar, Balotra, Baran, Banswara, Bharatpur, Bhilwara, Bikaner, Bundi, Churu, Chittorgarh, Dausa, Dholpur, Dungarpur, Sri Ganganagar, Hanumangarh, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur District, Jaisalmer, Jalore, Jhalawar, Jhunjhunu, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur District, Kota, Karauli, Merta City, Pali, Pratapgarh, Rajasmand, Sawaimadhopur, Sikar, Sirohi, Tonk and Udaipur. ----Respondents

(5) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12416/2019
CNR: RJHC020649962019 | URN: CW / 23418U / 2019

Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Through Member Secretary, Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain ----Petitioner
Versus
(1) Chief Secretary Through State Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur. (2) Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur. (3) Director General (Prison), Ghat Gate, Jaipur. (4) The Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. ----Respondents

(6) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5997/2026
CNR: RJHC020306852026 | URN: CW / 13239U / 2026

Suo Moto- In Re- In Human Conditions In Prisons, Rajasthan High Court Bench Jaipur ----Petitioner
Versus
(1) State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (2) Director General/inspector General Of Prisons, Government Of Rajasthan. (3) Member Secretary Of State Legal Services Authority (RALSA), Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, Amicus Curiae with Ms. Priyanka Tiwari & Ms. Vidushi Singh; Ms. Sumati Bishnoi, Amicus Curiae; Ms. Sonal Singh, Amicus Curiae
For Respondent(s): Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AG assisted by Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma; Mr. SP Singh Rajawat, Asst. GC with Ms. Shikha Sharma, AAAG for Mr. Gurucharan Singh Gill, AAG; Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma; Mr. Anshuman Saxena; Ms. Manisha Agarwal; Ms. Shilpa Choudhary; Ms. Jyoti Rathore

[NyayVidhan notes: Stored from the official Rajasthan High Court PDF of the common judgment (hcraj file 205200028082012_85.pdf, 15 pages, uploaded 26.10.2026). (1) The paragraph numbers 1-16 are the Court's own; the lettered and numbered items within paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 13 ((i)-(viii), (a)-(d), (a)-(f), (i)-(vi)) are kept on separate lines as printed (each shown with a full stop after the bracket, as most are printed; item (v) of paragraph 7 is printed without one). The Court's part headings are kept as separate lines. (2) The index of parts on page 5 (S. No. 1-6 with page numbers) is omitted; its headings appear in the text (the first is printed in the text as 'PREFACE:'). (3) The cause titles are abridged: the parentage, age and address of the person through whom the petition in D.B. CWP No. 11417/2008 is filed and of the Member Secretary in D.B. CWP No. 12416/2019 are omitted; the respondents' numbers are shown as (1)-(41), and the thirty-five Chief Judicial Magistrates in D.B. CWP No. 17462/2017 are listed in one line. (4) Withheld by NyayVidhan and marked '[name withheld]' / '[names withheld]' / '[the accused]': the name of the history-sheeter in paragraph 3, the name of the undertrial accused of the killing in paragraphs 7 and 8 (the investigation is pending, paragraph 12), the names of jail staff in paragraph 7 and of the deceased's brother in paragraph 7; '[parentage withheld]' replaces the parentage and caste description of a prisoner who wrote to the Court (paragraph 4). The PDF is authoritative. (5) Footnote markers are shown as [1]-[3] and the three footnotes are collected at the end. (6) The text is otherwise as printed, including 'Tihad' (paragraph 5), 'Rastradoot' (paragraph 2), 'in pursuant to' (paragraph 7), 'Rajasthan Custodian Death Relief Scheme 2025' (paragraphs 9 and 13), 'Suo Moto- In Re- In Human Conditions' and 'Chief Judical Magistrate' (cause titles), and items (d) and (e) of paragraph 9, both headed 'D.B. CWP No. 12416/2019' (item (d) 'Custodial Death', item (e) 'RSLSA'; no item is headed D.B. CWP No. 17462/2017). Page furniture (running heads, page numbers, upload/download stamps, the staff line and the TCPDF line) is removed.]

[Source: Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — judgment dated 26.10.2026.]

DIVISION BENCH

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

C.A.V. Judgment

PREFACE:

1. The present batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) encompasses a wide spectrum of issues pertaining to the rights, welfare, and dignity of prisoners, as well as the overarching infrastructure, security, and conditions prevailing in the jails across the State of Rajasthan.

2. This Court took suo motu cognizance of the present batch of PILs in the period spanning from 2012 to 2026 on the basis of alarming news reports published on 25.02.2012 and 26.02.2012 in various daily and regional newspapers such as Rajasthan Patrika, Rastradoot, Dainik Navjyoti, Dainik Bhaskar, and Times of India.

3. The said reports highlighted an incident where a history-sheeter, namely [name withheld], allegedly masterminded an extortion and firing incident on a tyre businessman in Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, while being lodged in the Ajmer Jail, communicating through a mobile phone and listening to the live gunfire. The media questioned the security apparatus inside the jails and prisons, noting that courts were being forced to term the jails as Shadyantralaya (Conspiracy houses) due to the unhindered operation of crime syndicates from within prison walls.

4. Over the years, the scope of the present batch of PILs was expanded to include representations from several inmates, notably a letter dated 04.01.2014 from prisoners of Central Jail, Kota, and a letter dated 06.01.2015 sent by one Raju Lal [parentage withheld] and other prisoners of Central Jail, Jaipur.

5. By way of the above-mentioned letters and relying upon the dictum enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Phool Kumari v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihad, New Delhi[1], it was prayed for the constitution of a committee to provide minimum wages to prisoners equivalent to the MNREGA Scheme.

QUINTESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE AJMER JAIL INCIDENT AND INFRASTRUCTURAL LAPSES:

6. Recently, on 02.07.2026, this Court took serious note of a fatal incident that occurred within the High Security Jail, Ajmer, directing the respondents to file a detailed and comprehensive Status Report regarding the alleged murder of an under-trial prisoner, namely Jagan Gurjar, substantiating the operational failure of the CCTV cameras.

7. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has placed a detailed Status Report dated 28.07.2026 on record in pursuant to the order dated 02.07.2026 passed by this Court, revealing the following disturbing facts:
(i). The deceased, namely Jagan Gurjar, undertrial in Arms Act Case No. 99/2026, Bari, Dholpur, was transferred to Ajmer on 29.03.2026.
(ii). Following a rift with his brother [name withheld], Jagan was shifted to Cell No.5 of Block No.4, Ward No.2 on 16.05.2026, as he claimed he felt safe with the seven prisoners involved in the ‘Jaghina murder case’ lodged in that block.
(iii). On 29.06.2026, during the mid-day lock-up at around 11:00 AM to 03:00 PM, Jagan was lodged in Cell No.5 along with another undertrial, [name withheld]. [The accused] was locked in the same cell at Jagan’s behest to play the game of Ludo.
(iv). The timeline indicates that after the cell was cleaned by sweeper [name withheld] at around 11:17 AM, and rounds were made by Nursing Officers [names withheld] at around 12:00 Noon, the accused called Constable [name withheld] at around 1:18 PM to switch off the fan.
(v). In-between the above-mentioned period and the unlocking of the jail at around 2:54 PM by Constable [name withheld], [the accused] allegedly strangled Jagan Gurjar to death using a towel.
(vi). Upon discovery of the same, the Superintendent of Jail interrogated [the accused], who claimed that the motive behind causing the death of Jagan Gurjar was prolonged taunts by the deceased regarding his criminal background and family. [The accused] admitted to turning off the fan in a failed attempt to stage a suicide.
(vii). Thereafter, an FIR bearing No.0176/2026 dated 29.06.2026 came to be registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Ajmer. Subsequently FSL teams were called, and a judicial inquiry was commenced by the learned CJM, Ajmer City East.
(viii). Following the post mortem of the deceased on 30.06.2026, Jagan’s brother [name withheld] attended the cremation on 01.07.2026 under a police guard provided by the learned Special Judge, Dholpur.

STATUS REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT-STATE:

8. Addressing the Court’s query qua the non-functional CCTV cameras, the Status Report filed by the respondent-State clarifies that:
(a). The Ajmer jail has 319 cameras installed via RAJCOMP, out of which approximately 258 are operational and monitored 24x7.
(b). Regarding Cell No.5, the specific camera was damaged and the same was not operational properly due to a technical fault. Server logs reflect that the said camera went completely offline automatically on 24.06.2026 at 9:16 AM, days before the incident.
(c). Demonstrating premeditation, the accused, under the mistaken belief that the camera was operational due to a glowing LED, attempted to obscure the lens by applying Colgate toothpaste on it at around 10:00 AM on 29.06.2026.
(d). The records exonerate the immediate Jail Administration of willful negligence regarding the cameras. The Jail Superintendent had sent approximately 20 written communications/e-mails since the beginning of 2026 to the DOIT, Jaipur, the District Collector, and RISL regarding frequent UPS damage and server shutdowns. The latest reminder was sent on 18.06.2026, followed by urgent post-incident communications on 30.06.2026 and 08.07.2026.

PETITION-WISE COMPLIANCE STATUS AND SUBMISSIONS:

9. We have also perused the Status Report dated 05.03.2025 submitted by the respondent, juxtaposed against the Short Note dated 30.09.2026 submitted by Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, learned Amicus Curiae, highlighting areas requiring continuing monitoring. As per the Short Note dated 30.09.2026 submitted by learned Advocate General, the petition-wise status as on date of the present batch of petitions are as follows:-
(a). In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2808/2012: Learned Advocate General submits that substantial compliance has been achieved qua 45 specific directions issued by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2016. It is submitted that an MoU for food has been executed with CONFED. It is next submitted that the State has enacted the Rajasthan Prisoners Rules 2022, Parole Rules 2021, and Shortening of Sentences Rules 2026. Regarding video-conferencing, it is submitted that 70% implementation of the same has been achieved, and the matter is presently seized with and under the active consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shashi Alias Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Jurmani v. State of Maharashtra[2]. However, learned Amicus Curiae raised strong objections against the same highlighting that an aggregate statement of CCTV installations is inadequate. It is stated that recent District Judge inspection reports dated 29.10.2025 disclose glaring deficiencies: Mahila Bandi Sudhar Grih, Ajmer has 0 CCTV cameras; Central Jail, Bikaner has only 16 cameras against a proposed 275 due to budget paucity; District Jail, Jaipur has fewer cameras than required (60 proposed); Central Jail, Kota has only 15; and 37 cameras out of total 147 cameras at Jodhpur and Udaipur are non-functional. Moreover, learned Amicus Curiae highlighted that the recruitment of 876 Challani Guards between 2019-2021 does not address the current manpower requirements based on present overcrowding. The order dated 05.03.2018 regarding intensive searches for mobile phones also requires verifiable, institution-wise logs, not merely the installation of jammers. It is lastly stated that the Prison Inmate Calling System (PICS) must also be functionally verified.
(b). D.B. CWP No. 11417/2008 (Peoples Watch): It is stated that the said petition regarding the inadequate provision of washing soda pertaining to Rule 120 of the Rajasthan Prisons Rules, 1951 and water is now subsumed under directions 1 and 2 of the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by this Court, which mandate continuous tap-water supply and hygiene.
(c). D.B. CWP No. 5463/2015 (Women’s Rights): It is highlighted that automatic sanitary napkin vending machines were installed in Jaipur, and directions were issued for the remaining six women’s prisons at Jodhpur, Kota, Udaipur, Ajmer, Bharatpur, and Bikaner. The issue of allowing periodic meetings of closely related convicts (husband/wife, father/son) is currently being examined by the State.
(d). D.B. CWP No. 12416/2019 (Custodial Death): It is urged that the State Government has formulated the “Rajasthan Custodian Death Relief Scheme 2025”, based on prevalent schemes in Haryana, Odisha, and Karnataka. The scheme is pending scrutiny and approval by the learned Advocate General and will be operationalized shortly.
(e). D.B. CWP No. 12416/2019 (RSLSA): Regarding the release of female/old prisoners, the State placed an updated status dated 10.10.2025 on record reflecting that 548 female prisoners are out on bail, 48 on permanent parole, 45 released, 123 in Open Jails, 32 deceased, and 254 confined.
(f). D.B.C.W. (PIL) No. 5997/2026 (Open Correctional Institutions): Registered pursuant to the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India[3], it is submitted that Open Correctional Institutions are actively functioning in the State of Rajasthan.

EVALUATION OF INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS:

10. We extend our sincere appreciation to all the learned Amici Curiae for their valuable assistance and efforts in the present matter spanning from the period of 2008 to 2026.

11. Upon bare perusal of the above-mentioned record, we are of the view that the extensive exercise undertaken by this Court since 2008 has yielded substantial institutional reforms, the enactment of updated Prison Rules, and widespread infrastructural upgrades. However, as the unfortunate incident of 29.06.2026 at Ajmer demonstrates, the implementation of these directions requires perpetual vigilance, adequate technical support, and not merely episodic compliance.

12. Given that the specific murder incident is under active investigation, and considering that the State Government is pursuing institutional reforms, keeping these judicial dockets pending endlessly serves no further fruitful purpose. However, their closure must be accompanied by a robust, continuous monitoring mechanism as prayed for by the learned Amicus Curiae.

DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSION:

13. Accordingly, the present batch of suo motu Public Interest Litigations stands closed and disposed of with the following directions:
(i). Permanent Monitoring Committee: A State-Level Monitoring Committee is hereby constituted, headed by the District Judge(s) concerned of the respective districts who shall act as the Chairman of the Committee. Being the administrative and judicial head of the district, the District Judge shall actively monitor the prevailing conditions, provide requisite inputs for effective execution, and ensure that all the directions passed by this Court shall be strictly complied with in letter and spirit. The other members of the Committee shall comprise the Director General of Prisons, Rajasthan, the Member Secretary, RSLSA, and the Director, DOIT, Rajasthan.
(ii). Technical Mandamus to DOIT & RISL: A mandamus is issued to the Director, DOIT, Rajasthan, and RAJCOMP Info Services Ltd. (RISL) to immediately respond and take appropriate actions towards the pending maintenance requests from all Jails. The said authorities are granted three months to ensure that all proposed CCTV cameras, including 275 cameras at Bikaner and 60 cameras at Jaipur, are fully installed; defective cameras, as highlighted vide the inspection report dated 29.10.2025 are repaired; and adequate storage and backup systems are functional.
(iii). Security Sweeps: The Prison Department shall formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to comply with the directions laid down by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2018 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2808/2012, ensuring periodic, intensive, and surprise searches for mobile phones across all jails, maintaining a strict institution-wise log of recoveries.
(iv). Manpower & Wages: The State Government shall, within three months, assess the current requirement of Challani Guards against the present inmate population and initiate time-bound recruitment. Moreover, the State shall ensure that the payment of wages to prisoners remains in consonance with the mandates laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Phool Kumari (supra).
(v). Women’s Prisons & Related Convicts: The State shall ensure the functional availability of sanitary vending machines across all women’s prisons. The policy allowing periodic meetings of closely related convicts shall be finalized within two months.
(vi). Custodial Death Relief Scheme: The “Rajasthan Custodian Death Relief Scheme 2025” shall be finalized, approved, and formally notified by the State Government within a period of three months from the date of passing of the present judgment.

14. It is directed that the State-Level Monitoring Committee shall convene quarterly to review the compliance of the aforesaid directives passed hereinabove and the categorical directions passed by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2016 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2808/2012.

15. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of the present judgment to all the concerned District Judges for knowledge and necessary compliance of the present judgment.

16. Pending applications, if any, in the present batch of petitions also stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J
(SANJAY K. AGRAWAL),CJ

Footnotes

[1] 2012 Cr.L.J. 1261 (S.C.)
[2] M.A. No. 183/2026 in SLP Crl 12690/2025
[3] (WP 1082/2020)