Supreme Court orders states to frame release policy for elderly, terminally ill prisoners
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed every state and Union Territory to notify a compassionate release policy within three months, protecting prisoner dignity under Article 21.
The Supreme Court has directed all states and Union Territories to formulate and notify, within three months, a comprehensive policy for the early or premature release of prisoners who are of advanced age or terminally ill. The direction came in a writ petition filed by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) under Article 32, raising systemic concerns about the continued confinement of convicts above 70 years or suffering terminal illness. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the guarantees of dignity, fairness and humane treatment under Article 21 continue to operate behind prison walls. The Court found that a decade-old executive advisory had been implemented unevenly and issued a supervisory framework to give the constitutional guarantee meaningful effect. Judgment was delivered on 16 July 2026.
How the petition reached the Court
NALSA moved the Court in discharge of its statutory mandate under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Between 10 December 2024 and 10 March 2025, it conducted a nationwide Special Campaign for Old Prisoners and Terminally Ill Prisoners — described in the judgment as the first structured effort of its kind.
Data collated from State Legal Services Authorities identified 5,393 prisoners falling within the elderly and terminally ill categories. From this cohort, NALSA identified 11 terminally ill convicts and 84 convicts above 70 years across 17 states and one Union Territory, all convicted by High Courts but yet to approach the Supreme Court by appeal or special leave.
The petition drew on the Prison Statistics India Report, 2022 of the National Crime Records Bureau, which recorded 1,33,415 convicted prisoners as on 31 December 2022, with 27,690 — about 20.8 per cent — aged 50 and above. The Court noted that medical causes and ageing-related complications account for a substantial share of custodial deaths.
The Court issued notice on 5 May 2025. Despite service, only Bihar and Himachal Pradesh filed counter affidavits. The matter was heard on 18 July 2025, with Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar appearing for NALSA.
What the Court held on Article 21
The Court held that the right to life and dignity under Article 21 is not suspended upon conviction. It found that incarceration resulting in avoidable physical suffering and denial of medical care ceases to be a lawful restriction and becomes constitutionally impermissible.
The bench characterised the issue as systemic rather than individual. It said the case called for a “systemic recalibration of criminal justice system” in which vulnerability is treated as a constitutionally significant determinant.
The Court relied on Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration for reading into Article 21 the right against cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, and on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India for substantive due process. It cited Dr. P. Varavara Rao v. National Investigation Agency, where permanent bail was granted on medical grounds to an 82-year-old prisoner, and Rasik Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, where interim release was directed for a centenarian convict.
The reasoning on policy and separation of powers
The Court traced the executive acknowledgment of the problem to an advisory issued by the Government of India on 13 August 2010, following the Delhi High Court's suo motu proceedings in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 201 of 2009. That advisory called for identification of terminally ill prisoners, medical boards, and compassionate release criteria, and urged states to enable such prisoners to live their remaining lives with dignity near family.
The Court found the advisory's implementation had been uneven and dependent on individual initiatives rather than systemic compliance. It referred to the Law Commission's 268th Report, which recommended mandatory bail where an accused suffers a life-threatening condition and adequate medical care is unavailable in custody.
On international norms, the Court noted the UNODC Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs, the Nelson Mandela Rules and a Council of Europe report, holding that these carry persuasive constitutional relevance under Article 51(c).
The bench acknowledged that prisons fall within List II of the Seventh Schedule, placing primary responsibility on states. It said the Court cannot legislate or supplant statutory frameworks under the doctrine of separation of powers. But it added that “constitutional restraint cannot be equated with constitutional abdication,” permitting directions where systemic inaction violates fundamental rights.
The directions issued
Exercising powers under Articles 32 and 142, the Court directed all states and Union Territories to notify a comprehensive release policy within three months, framed in consultation with State Legal Services Authorities. The policy must define eligibility and provide a uniform definition of terminal illness, for which the UNODC Handbook definition may be adopted.
The Court directed constitution of independent Medical Boards at divisional and state levels for certification, a time-bound and transparent procedure for applications, and integration with Under Trial Review Committees. States may adopt or modify the NALSA framework annexed as Schedule A.
The entire process must be integrated with the National e-Prisons Portal, with each application digitally registered and tracked. The Union of India, through the Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Home Affairs and the National Informatics Centre, was directed to provide technical support and infrastructure.
The Union and all states and Union Territories must file compliance affidavits within six months, reporting the number of prisoners identified, released and under consideration.
Order
The Court directed the Registry to implead the remaining states and Union Territories not already party to the proceedings, including Assam, Gujarat, Karnataka, Jammu and Kashmir and others. A copy of the judgment was to be transmitted to the relevant Secretaries and Chief Secretaries. The matter was listed on 19 January 2027 for consideration of the compliance affidavits.