Supreme Court Directs All States and UTs to Constitute Board of Visitors for Prison Oversight

The Supreme Court of India, on July 30, 2026, directed all State Governments and Union Territories to constitute Boards of Visitors (BoVs) for prison oversight in every district, in compliance with Clause 29.01 of the Model Prison Manual, 2016. A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the order while hearing a suo motu case concerning caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons, which arose from the landmark judgment in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India. The Court expressed concern that not a single State or Union Territory had constituted the Boards of Visitors despite the mandate in the Model Prison Manual. The direction marks a significant step towards strengthening external oversight mechanisms for prisons and ensuring the protection of prisoners' fundamental rights.

The Sukanya Shantha Case: Origins and Context

The case traces its origins to an investigative report published by journalist Sukanya Shantha in December 2020, which documented the widespread prevalence of caste-based discrimination within Indian prisons. The report revealed that prison manuals across multiple states assigned degrading manual labour, including cleaning of toilets and sweeping, to prisoners belonging to Denotified Tribes and lower castes, while upper-caste prisoners were assigned clerical or kitchen duties. Shantha subsequently filed a writ petition in December 2023, challenging provisions in various state prison manuals and the Model Prison Manual, 2016, that perpetuated such caste-based division of labour.

The petition also challenged provisions in the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, arguing that these provisions were inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution of India. The case was taken up as a public interest litigation of great significance, given the systemic nature of the discrimination alleged and its impact on thousands of prisoners across the country.

The October 2024 Landmark Judgment

On October 3, 2024, the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, striking down several provisions of state prison manuals that perpetuated caste-based segregation and discrimination in prisons. The Court held that the assignment of labour in prisons based on caste was a clear violation of Article 17, which abolishes untouchability, and Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of caste. The judgment directed all states to amend their prison manuals to remove any provisions that classified prisoners or assigned duties based on caste identity.

The Court also directed the deletion of the caste column from all prison records and registers, holding that the recording of a prisoner's caste served no legitimate penological purpose and only facilitated discriminatory treatment. The judgment was widely regarded as a watershed moment for prisoners' rights in India. For context on other recent directions by the Supreme Court requiring compliance by all states, readers may refer to the order directing all states to appoint commissioners under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Status Report Reveals Complete Non-Compliance

Following the October 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court continued to monitor the implementation of its directions. A status report submitted to the Court prior to the July 30, 2026, hearing revealed a deeply concerning state of affairs. Not a single State Government or Union Territory administration had constituted the Boards of Visitors as mandated under Clause 29.01 of the Model Prison Manual, 2016. This complete non-compliance alarmed the bench, which observed that the Board of Visitors was envisaged as the principal mechanism of external prison oversight and its absence meant that prisons across the country were functioning without any meaningful external accountability.

The status report also indicated that several states had not fully complied with the directions issued in the October 2024 judgment regarding the removal of caste-based provisions from their prison manuals. The bench noted that the lack of external oversight through Boards of Visitors made it impossible to verify whether the substantive reforms ordered by the Court were being implemented on the ground. This situation underscored the importance of establishing a robust monitoring mechanism to ensure that the rights of prisoners, many of whom belong to marginalized communities and lack the resources to approach courts, are protected. The Court's approach is consistent with its stance on custodial rights, including the principles governing habeas corpus petitions for illegal detention.

Directions Issued on July 30, 2026

The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran issued specific directions requiring all State Governments and Union Territory administrations to constitute Boards of Visitors in every district where a prison or sub-divisional jail is located. The Court directed that each Board of Visitors shall be headed by the Principal District Judge of the concerned district. The composition of the board is to include representatives from the judiciary, the district administration, and civil society, ensuring a multi-stakeholder approach to prison oversight.

The Court further directed that the Boards of Visitors shall conduct regular inspections of prisons within their jurisdiction and submit periodic reports to the concerned High Court and the District Legal Services Authority. These inspections are to cover all aspects of prison administration, including conditions of detention, access to legal aid, medical facilities, sanitation, food quality, and compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Sukanya Shantha judgment. The board is also empowered to receive and act upon complaints from prisoners regarding any form of discrimination or mistreatment.

Clause 29.01 of the Model Prison Manual, 2016

Clause 29.01 of the Model Prison Manual, 2016, provides for the constitution of Boards of Visitors in each district and sub-divisional prison. The Manual envisages the Board of Visitors as the principal mechanism of external oversight, designed to bridge the gap between the prison administration and the outside world. The board is intended to function as an independent body that can identify systemic issues, recommend reforms, and ensure that prisoners are treated in accordance with the law and established standards.

The Manual specifies that the board should include judicial officers, district officials, and members of civil society with experience in human rights, social welfare, or prison reform. The Court observed that despite this clear mandate, no state had taken steps to constitute these boards, reflecting a systemic disregard for the rights of prisoners. The question of sentencing and conditions of incarceration is closely related to the Court's recent rulings on the constitutionality of life imprisonment without remission, which examined the legal framework governing the most severe forms of punishment.

Role of the Principal District Judge

The Court's direction that the Board of Visitors be headed by the Principal District Judge is significant. The involvement of the senior-most judicial officer at the district level ensures that the oversight mechanism carries judicial authority and is not merely an administrative formality. The Principal District Judge, being familiar with the criminal justice system and the rights of accused persons and convicts, is well-positioned to identify violations of prisoners' rights and to take corrective action.

The Court also noted that the District Legal Services Authority, which operates under the supervision of the District Judge, can work in tandem with the Board of Visitors to ensure that prisoners have access to legal aid and that their grievances are addressed promptly. This coordination between the judiciary and the oversight board is expected to create a more effective accountability framework. Those interested in the broader landscape of remission of sentence and prisoner rights will find this development particularly relevant.

Continuing Monitoring and Amicus Curiae

The Court appointed Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar as amicus curiae to continue monitoring the implementation of the directions issued in the Sukanya Shantha case. The amicus is tasked with reporting to the Court on the progress made by various states in constituting the Boards of Visitors and implementing the reforms directed in the October 2024 judgment. The appointment of an amicus curiae underscores the Court's recognition that court-ordered reforms in the prison system require sustained judicial oversight to be effective.

The amicus is also responsible for monitoring the deletion of the caste column from prison records and the implementation of non-discriminatory labour allocation practices in prisons. The Court has retained the matter on its board for periodic hearings, signaling its intention to remain actively involved in the reform process. This sustained engagement by the Supreme Court with institutional reform is consistent with its broader approach to ensuring transparency and accountability in public institutions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's July 30, 2026, direction to constitute Boards of Visitors across all states and Union Territories represents a critical step in the ongoing effort to reform India's prison system. The order, rooted in Clause 29.01 of the Model Prison Manual, 2016, and the constitutional principles affirmed in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, seeks to establish a robust external oversight mechanism that can hold prison administrations accountable and protect the fundamental rights of prisoners. By placing the Principal District Judge at the helm of each board, the Court has ensured that the oversight mechanism carries judicial weight and is not reduced to a mere bureaucratic exercise. The complete non-compliance by all states serves as a reminder that judicial pronouncements alone are insufficient, and that sustained monitoring and enforcement are essential to translate constitutional promises into lived reality for the most vulnerable members of society.