Tripura HC Pulls Up State for Inaction on Open Correctional Infrastructure Directions Passed by Supreme Court
The Tripura High Court's Division Bench found that the State missed the 26 May 2026 deadline to assess prison infrastructure and prepare time-bound action plans as directed by the Supreme Court in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India.
The High Court of Tripura, acting on its own motion, reprimanded the State Government on 26 August 2026 for failing to comply with directions issued by the Supreme Court in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India and Others on the expansion of Open Correctional Infrastructure (OCI) across prisons. Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit, sitting as a Division Bench in Suo Moto WP(C) No.01 of 2026, examined the minutes of the State Level Monitoring Committee meeting held on 22 June 2026 and found that instead of completing a comprehensive prison assessment by the Supreme Court’s deadline of 26 May 2026, the State had merely proposed a study of OCI arrangements in other States. The bench directed the State to achieve full compliance with the relevant Supreme Court directions by 25 September 2026 and listed the matter for 28 September 2026.
What the Supreme Court Had Directed in Suhas Chakma
The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 26 February 2026 in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India and Others (WP(C) No.1082/2020), issued a set of directions at paragraph E of page 127 requiring all States and Union Territories to expand open correctional infrastructure in a structured, time-bound manner.
The specific obligations placed on each State were threefold. First, each State’s Prisons and Correctional Services Department was required to undertake a comprehensive assessment of prison infrastructure within three months of the judgment — that is, by 26 May 2026. This assessment had to identify locations suitable for new OCIs and pinpoint closed prisons where open or semi-open barracks could be created without compromising safety or security.
Second, on the basis of that assessment, each State was required to prepare separate, time-bound action plans with clear timelines, budgetary provisions, and capacity targets — covering both the establishment of new OCIs and the creation of open or semi-open barracks within existing closed prisons.
Third, those action plans were to be placed before the State Level Monitoring Committee within three months of the judgment, again by 26 May 2026. The Supreme Court also mandated a High Power Committee to formulate Common Minimum Standards and guidelines, with each State then required to prepare its action plan in conformity with those standards.
What Tripura’s State Level Monitoring Committee Did Instead
The Tripura bench reviewed the minutes of the State Level Monitoring Committee meeting of 22 June 2026 — a meeting held almost a month after the Supreme Court’s deadline had already passed. The minutes disclosed that the Committee had resolved to undertake a detailed study of OCI arrangements in other States such as Telangana and Rajasthan before proceeding further.
The Additional Secretary, Home Department, informed the Committee that the government was in “active consideration” for OCI establishment. The Committee also recorded that the State would need to make provision for substantial expenditure from limited resources and would therefore consider establishing OCI in a phased manner. On procedural matters, the Committee decided to await guidelines from the High Power Committee before taking further steps, while directing the Home Department and the Inspector General of Prisons to begin collecting basic data on existing prisons.
The bench noted that the Supreme Court had itself communicated its judgment to all State Governments through their Chief Secretaries and to Directors General and Inspectors General of Prisons. The judgment would therefore have reached Tripura and its prison administration. Despite this, the State had neither completed the assessment nor prepared any action plan within the time frame set by the Supreme Court.
The Division Bench’s Reasoning
The bench made its disapproval explicit. It described the State’s response as reflecting a “laid back attitude” that was not warranted given the mandatory timelines in the Supreme Court’s directions. The court observed that the necessary speed and urgency required by the matter was absent.
On the proposal to study OCI models in other States, the bench held that this course of action was not open to Tripura at this stage. Pursuing such a study would delay implementation of the Supreme Court’s directions without justification. If information about OCI functioning in other States was considered necessary, the bench pointed out that it could be obtained online and need not require a separate in-person study that would further set back the timeline.
The court also drew a distinction between matters requiring clarification from the High Power Committee and the immediate obligations imposed by the Supreme Court directly on each State. The assessment and action plan preparation under paragraph E of the judgment did not depend on awaiting the High Power Committee’s guidelines. Those steps were independently mandated and were already overdue.
Tripura’s geographical position — sharing an international boundary with Bangladesh and having easy access to international corridors — had been cited by the State Level Monitoring Committee as a reason for special precautionary measures before establishing OCIs. The bench did not engage with that concern in its order, focusing instead on the State’s failure to even complete the baseline assessment that would have informed any such deliberation.
Outcome
The Division Bench directed the State of Tripura to ensure compliance with paragraph E of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India on or before 25 September 2026. The writ petition is listed for hearing on 28 September 2026. The Advocate General, Mr. S.M. Chakraborti, and Mrs. Pinki Chakraborty, Advocate, appeared for the State.