SC Directs Nationwide Framework for Early Release of Elderly and Terminally Ill Prisoners

In a decisive intervention to protect human dignity behind bars, the Supreme Court has mandated all States and Union Territories to notify comprehensive policies for the premature release of elderly and terminally ill inmates, ruling that continued incarceration in conditions of severe physical suffering violates the constitutional guarantee of life. The Court declared that the power of the State cannot degenerate into cruel or degrading treatment, asserting that constitutional values do not remain suspended even within prison walls.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued these directions while hearing a writ petition instituted by the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petition raised systemic concerns regarding the plight of convicts above 70 years of age or those suffering from terminal illnesses, whose deteriorating health and the manifest inadequacy of medical facilities in prisons result in an erosion of human dignity.

The Mandate of Constitutional Dignity in Prisons

The Court emphasized that the treatment of vulnerable individuals within the institutional framework reflects a democracy's commitment to the rule of law. It observed that while prisons are instruments of lawful confinement, the guarantees of fairness and humane treatment continue to operate with full force. The bench noted that aging-related complications and medical causes account for a substantial portion of custodial fatalities, highlighting the structural inability of prisons to provide specialized palliative care.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Prisons, though instruments of lawful confinement, are not spaces where constitutional values are suspended. The guarantees of dignity, fairness and humane treatment continue to operate with full force even behind prison walls, where the power of the State is exercised in its most intrusive form and the vulnerability of individuals is at its highest."

Directives for Early and Compassionate Release

The Court has the following directions:

"A. All States and Union Territories shall, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment, formulate and notify a comprehensive policy for early or premature release of prisoners who are of advanced age and/or are terminally ill. Such policy shall be framed in consultation with the respective State Legal Services Authorities so as to ensure institutional coordination and effective identification of eligible prisoners.

B. The said policy shall clearly define the eligibility criteria and procedural framework for consideration of release. In particular, the policy shall expressly provide a clear and uniform definition of “terminal illness”. For this purpose, States and Union Territories may adopt, with such modifications as deemed appropriate, the definition contained in the UNODC Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs (2009), which describes terminal illness as “a condition where there is no reasonable medical possibility that the patient’s condition will not continue to degenerate and result in death.”

C. The policy shall mandate constitution of independent Medical Boards at the Divisional and State levels for objective medical assessment and certification of terminal illness or advanced medical vulnerability. Such Boards shall comprise suitably qualified medical professionals and shall conduct periodic reviews of identified cases.

D. The policy shall prescribe a time-bound, transparent and accessible procedure for submission, examination and disposal of applications for early or compassionate release. Procedural delays which result in prisoners spending their final months or years under incarceration shall be avoided, and all decisions shall be reasoned and subject to judicial review.

E. The policy shall be integrated with the functioning of Under Trial Review Committees (UTRCs), and such committees shall be mandatorily required to periodically review cases of prisoners who are terminally ill, of advanced age, or suffering from any other condition leading to physical incapacitation, as the case may be, and to recommend appropriate legal action including bail, parole, remission or release.

F. States and Union Territories may adopt the framework proposed by NALSA, as annexed to the present judgment as Schedule A, or modify the same to suit local administrative and legal requirements, provided that the core principles of dignity, proportionality and humane treatment are preserved.

G. The policy shall also provide for coordination with community health services, social welfare departments and legal aid institutions to ensure continuity of medical care and social support for prisoners released under compassionate grounds.

H. The entire process for consideration of applications for early, premature or compassionate release shall be mandatorily integrated with the National e-Prisons Portal. Every application shall be digitally registered and assigned a unique tracking number, and the portal shall record each stage of processing, including submission of the application, medical evaluation, reports of the prison authorities, recommendations of the Medical Board and the Under Trial Review Committee, decisions of the competent authority, and the reasons therefor. The e-Prisons portal shall facilitate time-bound processing through automated alerts and monitoring of statutory or prescribed timelines, ensure transparency and accountability in decision-making, generate periodic compliance reports, and enable effective supervisory oversight by the State Government, the State Legal Services Authority, and other competent authorities, while maintaining appropriate safeguards for the confidentiality and privacy of prisoners’ medical and personal information.

I. The Union of India shall, through the Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Home Affairs and the National Informatics Centre (NIC) under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), provide all necessary technical support, digital infrastructure, software development, maintenance and capacity-building assistance to the States and Union Territories to facilitate effective compliance with the directions issued by this Court. The National Informatics Centre shall ensure that the e-Prisons portal is suitably configured, upgraded and maintained to enable seamless implementation of the framework directed herein, including digital processing, monitoring and tracking of applications for early, premature or compassionate release, and shall extend all necessary assistance to the States and Union Territories to ensure uniform, timely and effective implementation of these directions.

J. The Union of India through the Ministry of Law and Justice, and all the States and Union Territories shall file a compliance affidavits before this Court within six months, indicating the status of compliance with the directions issued hereinabove as well as the status of the formulation and implementation of the aforesaid policy, including data regarding the number of prisoners identified, released, and those presently under consideration.

K. A copy of this judgment shall be forthwith transmitted by the Registry of this Court to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India; Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India; the Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India; and the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories, for ensuring due compliance with the directions issued hereinabove.

L. The Registry is directed to implead the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Gujarat, Karnataka, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Uttarakhand, as well as the Union Territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Lakshadweep and Puducherry, as party-respondents in the present proceedings."

Further, the Court directed the integration of this process with the National e-Prisons Portal to ensure transparency and time-bound tracking. The Union of India, through various ministries, was ordered to provide technical support and digital infrastructure to facilitate this framework.

Background:

The case was triggered by a nationwide campaign conducted by Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 between December 2024 and March 2025, which identified 5,393 prisoners across India as elderly or terminally ill. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 argued that the continued detention of such individuals in ill-equipped, overcrowded prisons amounted to a violation of Article 14 and Article 21. It was highlighted that even with a 2010 Government of India advisory on the matter, implementation remained inconsistent.

The Court referred to the landmark ruling in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India ( "(1978) 1 SCC 248": 1978 CaseBase(SC) 307) to establish that any deprivation of liberty must conform to substantive due process. It also invoked Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration to reiterate the right of prisoners against cruel and inhuman treatment. In granting relief, the Court also relied on the principle of medical bail established in cases like Dr. P. Varavara Rao v. National Investigation Agency and Rasik Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal. While acknowledging that prisons fall under the State List of the Seventh Schedule, the Court asserted its supervisory role under Article 142 to prevent the erosion of fundamental rights due to executive inaction.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 162 OF 2025
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 713
Case Title: National Legal Services Authority V. Union Of India & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 666