New Delhi, Oct 28 Taking a stern view of non-compliance with judicial directions relating to facilities for prisoners in open and semi-open prisons, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued a contempt notice to the director general (prisons) for showing “complete disregard” for orders.
The high court also warned of issuing a contempt notice against the Delhi chief secretary, saying the government authorities were taking things too lightly in a matter in which the Supreme Court has issued directions for developing a protocol for open correctional institutions (OCIs) and for identifying the prisoners who can be transferred there.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma said no compliance was reported to it despite lapse of eight months from the date of passing of the apex court order and hardly any steps were taken by the state government or the Delhi Prison authority.
It noted that despite the top court’s February 2026 direction and subsequent orders of the high court, the government and prison authorities failed to act and the matter had “not moved an inch”.
The bench took an exception on the absence of the DG (prisons) in the proceedings and said he has shown “complete disregard” for the orders of the court by not being present here and by making a subordinate officer swear an affidavit, filed in the court, that too with incomplete information.
The court also said there was “complete callous and insensitive approach and attitude” on the part of the government officials who are responsible for reporting compliance of the judicial order.
The high court was hearing a suo motu PIL petition on the issue relating to semi-open prisons and open prisons in the state. The court had earlier asked the Delhi government to file an affidavit detailing the steps taken to ensure compliance with the top court’s order passed on February 26.
It has noted that according to the Supreme Court’s direction, every state and Union Territory (UT) has to constitute a monitoring committee, headed by the executive chairman of the state legal services authority or his nominee for the management of OCIs.
During the hearing, the bench asked whether the state government has framed or amended existing rules and regulations as directed by the apex court.
To this, Delhi government standing counsel (criminal) Sanjay Lao, on instructions from officers, said it was not required.
The bench asked if it should record the statement that no amendment or modification was required in the rules.
It noted that the top court had asked the government authorities not to send officers below the rank of secretary to the monitoring committee meeting. However, despite clear directions, a deputy secretary-rank officer was sent to the meeting, it said.
“You send your jokers to the monitoring committee meeting before the Delhi State Legal Services Authority chairman. Do you want us to show the minutes of the meeting, whom you are nominating to attend the committee meeting?
“We don’t want to wash dirty linen in our order about what the government has done here,” Justice Sambre said.
As the Delhi government counsel tried to explain what the authorities have done, the bench said they were taking things too lightly and this is a complete “eye wash”.
“You are not made answerable; it is the high court which is made answerable to the Supreme Court,” an annoyed bench said.
The court was then assured by the government counsel and special secretary of the home department that they will show the compliances to the court on the next date of hearing.
The counsel also gave an assurance that the next meeting of the committee, which is fixed on October 30, will be attended by the officers at the highest level in the Delhi government and the prisons authorities department with the entire instructions and reports.
In the wake of these assurances, the court deferred issuance of contempt notice to the Delhi chief secretary but asked the DG (prisons) to file his response to the contempt notice by November 18.
The court listed the matter for further consideration on November 20.
The high court had earlier said that the monitoring committee has to oversee the utilisation, functioning and expansion of the OCIs, and facilitate the timely identification and transfer of eligible prisoners from closed prisons to OCIs.
It had added that the committee must also undertake a periodic review and address the systemic impediments in implementing the Supreme Court’s directions.
In a bid to ensure that open prisons function as meaningful and effective institutions of reformation and rehabilitation, the Supreme Court on February 26 directed all states and UTs to develop a time-bound protocol for filling up existing vacancies in OCI and open barracks.
Semi-open or open prisons allow convicts to work outside the premises during the day to earn a livelihood and return in the evening. The concept was introduced to assimilate convicts with society and reduce psychological pressure as they faced difficulties in leading normal lives outside.
It directed all states and UTs to take proactive and time-bound steps to expand open correctional infrastructure by establishing new OCIs, and creating open and semi-open barracks within existing closed prisons.
For effective compliance and monitoring, the top court directed all the high courts to register a suo motu writ petition for monitoring compliance with the present judgment within their respective jurisdictions.
(PTI News)
