Overview<\/b><\/p>\n
In this case, the Supreme Court examined whether the elderly and terminally ill prisoners should be given constitutional protection in terms of their dignity and health.<\/span><\/p>\n The petition, filed by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) under Article 32 of the Constitution, highlighted the absence of a proper mechanism for the early release of such prisoners across the country.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The principal issue to be dealt with by the Court was whether the current legal and administrative framework responsibly protects the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Facts of the Case<\/b><\/p>\n The issue arose after a nationwide Special Campaign was conducted by NALSA for old and terminally ill prisoners between December 2024 and March 2025. The campaign identified the vulnerable prisoners by visiting prisons, medical records, and coordination with State and District Legal Services Authorities.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This revealed that 5393 prisoners, including 1886 under trial prisoners and 3507 convicts were elderly or were terminally ill. NALSA also found out that 11 terminally ill convicts and 84 convicts were above the age of 70 years, and whose cases required legal intervention.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It submitted that although the Union Government issued an advisory in 2010 to the States and Union Territories to form proper policies for terminally ill prisoners, the implementation of the same was very inconsistent.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Many prisoners continued to remain in custody despite suffering from serious medical issues.<\/span><\/p>\n It was argued that continued incarceration without proper medical care was against the constitutional right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The petition therefore sought appropriate directions to establish a uniform framework to identify eligible prisoners and consider their early release.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Legal Issues<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Decision\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n The petition was allowed by the Supreme Court and directions for protecting the rights of elderly and terminally ill prisoners were issued.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court held that imprisonment should in no case deprive a person of the constitutional guarantee of dignity. Detention of the prisoners suffering from terminal illness or advanced age without a proper mechanism for review, is a matter of concern under Article 21 of the Constitution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It also observed that the punishment must remain proportionate and cannot deteriorate into institutional neglect.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Accordingly, every State and Union Territory was given certain directions to formulate and notify within three months a policy as to the early release of eligible prisoners. The policy must define terminal illness, constitute independent Medical Boards, mention a transparent and time bound procedure, integrate the process with Under Trial Review Committees (UTRCs) and the National e-Prisons Portal, and ensure coordination with legal aid and healthcare authorities.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Union Government was also directed to provide necessary digital and technical support. Compliance affidavits were to be filed within six months, and the matter was listed for further consideration on 19 January 2027.<\/span><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" National Legal Services Authority [Petitioner(s) ]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 Union of India & Ors. [Respondent(s)] CIVIL APPEAL NO. \u00a0 OF 2026 Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s). 162 of 2025 (DB, Before Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.) Overview In this case, the Supreme Court examined whether the elderly and terminally ill prisoners should be given constitutional protection in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3872,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3870","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3870","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3870"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3870\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3874,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3870\/revisions\/3874"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3872"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3870"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3870"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3870"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n