The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 30, 2026) directed all States and Union Territories to constitute a board of visitors for prisons in every district, as required under the Model Prison Manual, 2016, within four weeks. The oversight body, comprising official and non-official members, conducts regular inspections of prisons, monitors the welfare of inmates and reviews living conditions in correctional facilities.
A Bench headed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala passed the direction while hearing a suo motu case initiated to address discrimination inside prisons following the apex court’s judgment in October last year directing the removal of provisions and practices in prison manuals that perpetuated caste discrimination in the allocation of prison work and other aspects of prison administration.
“We direct all the State governments/Union Territories to ensure that the Board of Visitors is constituted district-wise, headed by the Principal District Judge of that particular district, within a period of four weeks from today,” the Bench, also comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran, said.
Senior advocate S. Muralidhar, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae, pointed out that despite the mandate under the Model Prison Manual, none of the States had constituted district-wise boards of visitors. He submitted that these oversight bodies were essential for ensuring accountability and effective monitoring of prison administration.
Taking note of the submission, the Bench instructed Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union government, to communicate the court’s direction to all the States and Union Territories to constitute such boards.
Mr. Muralidhar also placed on record a status report on the compliance by States with the apex court’s 2024 judgment directing the Union and State governments to revise their prison manuals to remove provisions perpetuating caste-based discrimination. The judgment was delivered on a petition filed by journalist Sukanya Shantha, who had brought to the court’s notice provisions in several State prison manuals that institutionalised caste-based discrimination.
The court, however, had clarified that its judgment did not preclude the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) from collecting caste-related data for legitimate statistical purposes.
Caste-wise data
On Thursday (July 30, 2026), Mr. Muralidhar apprised the Bench that, despite the court’s clarification, several States had stopped furnishing caste-wise data on their prison population to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). “I had a meeting with the NCRB also. They said that many States have stopped collecting the data altogether. But we do need to know, in the prison population, how many are Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs),” he submitted.
The Bench, however, questioned why such information was required in the first place and expressed apprehension that the collection or maintenance of caste-wise data by prison authorities could itself perpetuate discrimination.
Responding to the court’s concerns, Mr. Muralidhar submitted that the data were necessary because prison statistics consistently reflected the overrepresentation of historically underprivileged communities. “In the prison population, there is an overrepresentation of those belonging to the underprivileged classes, particularly Scheduled Tribes. This has been a consistent pattern if you look at prison statistics,” he said.
Accordingly, the Bench directed all States and Union Territories to furnish caste-wise prison data to the NCRB using a uniform methodology. “Learned amicus made us understand that the States of Assam, Madhya Pradesh and Meghalaya, as well as the Union Territory of Chandigarh, have evolved a methodology for the transmission of caste data. According to him, the same methodology can be adopted by the other States for the purpose of procuring the necessary information,” the court said.
The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on September 10, 2026, to review compliance.
Earlier, the apex court had held that prison manual provisions allocating particular kinds of work on the basis of caste were incompatible with the constitutional guarantee against discrimination under Article 15. It had observed that references to “menial jobs” and assumptions that certain communities were “accustomed” to performing such work reflected entrenched caste stereotypes and perpetuated both direct and indirect discrimination.
“Members of denotified tribes have historically been treated as criminals from birth. This classification is an affront to their dignity and a gross violation of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life with dignity,” it had said.
