What happened
This case was not brought by a prisoner. It was brought by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) — the government body that runs free legal aid in India — which went to the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution on behalf of a group of people who mostly cannot speak for themselves. Between 10 December 2024 and 10 March 2025, NALSA ran a nationwide campaign to find prisoners who were either terminally ill or very old. It built a three-tier structure of national, state and district units, and sent the district units into every prison in their area to physically verify who was there. The campaign identified 5,393 such prisoners — 1,886 of them still under trial and 3,507 already convicted. The wider picture was worse. National Crime Records Bureau figures placed before the Court showed that of 1,33,415 convicted prisoners in India, 27,690 — roughly one in five — were aged 50 or above, and that illness is one of the leading causes of death inside prisons. NALSA's point was that a policy already existed on paper. After the Delhi High Court took up the issue on its own in 2009, the Government of India issued an advisory in 2010 telling every State to identify terminally ill prisoners, provide proper medical care and frame rules for compassionate release. Fifteen years later, it was still being followed in some places and ignored in others. One striking detail shows how far down the list this subject sits: when the Supreme Court issued notice in May 2025 to the Union Government and every State and Union Territory, only two — Bihar and Himachal Pradesh — bothered to file a reply.
What the court held
The Court held that keeping elderly and terminally ill prisoners locked up without any structured, transparent way to consider their release, and without adequate medical or palliative care, is not simply an administrative failure. It is a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Prisons, the judgment says, are 'not spaces where constitutional values are suspended' — the right to live with dignity does not end at the prison gate, and punishment must not be allowed to 'degenerate into institutional neglect'. It is important to be clear about what the Court did and did not do. NALSA had asked it to grant bail to the 5,393 prisoners its campaign had found. The Court did not do that. Not one prisoner was released by this judgment. Instead it treated the problem as systemic and issued directions binding on the Union, every State and every Union Territory. Each State and Union Territory must, within three months, frame and formally notify a policy for the early or premature release of prisoners who are of advanced age or terminally ill, drawn up in consultation with its State Legal Services Authority. That policy must set out clear eligibility criteria, and must adopt a single uniform definition of 'terminal illness' — the Court pointed to the definition in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime handbook, being a condition with no reasonable medical possibility of anything but continued deterioration and death. It must create independent Medical Boards at divisional and state level to assess and certify such cases, and to review them periodically. It must lay down a time-bound and accessible procedure, so that prisoners do not spend their final months waiting on paperwork, and every decision must be a reasoned one that can be challenged in court. It must be plugged into the Under Trial Review Committees, which are now required to review these cases regularly and recommend bail, parole, remission or release. And the whole process must run through the National e-Prisons Portal, with every application digitally registered under a tracking number, each stage recorded, automatic alerts for deadlines, and safeguards for the prisoner's medical privacy. The Union Government was told to supply the technical and digital support to make this work. Compliance affidavits are due within six months, and the Court has listed the matter on 19 January 2027 to examine them. The Court was careful about the limits of its own power. Prisons are a State subject under the Constitution, and it said plainly that it cannot take on the role of a legislature or write policy for the elected branches. But it added that 'constitutional restraint cannot be equated with constitutional abdication' — where inaction produces a systemic violation of fundamental rights, the Court cannot be a passive spectator. It described what it was doing as a limited supervisory role.
The law behind it
The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, which lets a person — or a body acting for people who cannot easily act for themselves — approach the Supreme Court directly when fundamental rights are being violated. The rights in question were Article 21 (the right to life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has long read as including the right to live with dignity) and Article 14 (equality before the law). The Court also drew on Article 142, its power to pass whatever order is necessary to do complete justice, which is what allowed it to issue detailed administrative directions to every State.
Two older decisions do the heavy lifting here. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court held that any procedure that takes away life or liberty must be fair, just and reasonable — not merely written down somewhere. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978), it read into Article 21 a protection against cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, and recognised that prisoners retain a right to health and humane treatment. The Court also pointed to its own recent orders granting release on medical grounds — permanent bail to an 82-year-old in Dr. P. Varavara Rao v. National Investigation Agency, and interim release to a prisoner over a hundred years old in Rasik Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal — and to the Law Commission's 268th Report, which recommended that bail be mandatory where a person has a life-threatening condition and cannot get adequate care in custody.
NALSA itself exists under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. That statute is the backbone of free legal aid in India: NALSA at the national level, a State Legal Services Authority in each State, and a District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) in each district. The Act obliges them to take up social justice litigation, which is why NALSA could bring this case at all despite having no personal stake in it.
One constitutional point explains the shape of the judgment. Under the Seventh Schedule, List II, 'prisons and persons detained therein' is a State subject. Only the States can legislate on it. That is why the Court directed States to frame policies rather than writing one itself.
If any of these terms are unfamiliar, our legal knowledge centre explains bail, parole, remission and fundamental rights in plain language, and you can ask our AI assistant about anything in this judgment.
What this means for you
If someone in your family is in prison and is very old or seriously ill, this judgment matters to you directly, and it matters whether they have been convicted or are still awaiting trial — both groups are covered. Until now, whether such a person was even considered for early release depended largely on which State they happened to be imprisoned in, and often on whether some individual official or judge took an interest. This judgment is meant to replace that lottery with a system: a written policy in every State, a medical board that assesses the illness independently rather than leaving it to the prison, a deadline for decisions, and a reason given when the answer is no. That last point is worth dwelling on, because a reasoned decision is one you can challenge in court. A refusal that says nothing can now be questioned. The tracking through the e-Prisons Portal matters for the same practical reason — an application that has a number attached to it is harder to lose. But be realistic about what this changes. Nobody walks out of prison because of this judgment. It does not create a right to be released at a particular age, and it does not say every person over 70 must go free — the Court left it to each State to set the eligibility criteria, and required a uniform definition only for 'terminal illness'. Each case is still decided individually, and the nature of the offence and public safety still weigh in the balance. What has changed is that there must now be a proper door to knock on, and someone on the other side of it who is obliged to answer.
What to do
Start with the District Legal Services Authority in the district where the person is imprisoned. This is the single most useful thing to know: DLSA help is free, you do not need to be able to afford a lawyer, and under the pathway the Supreme Court has approved, it is the DLSA that steps in and files an application where the State Government has not recommended release. Every district has one, usually at the district court complex. Ask specifically that the case be placed before the Under Trial Review Committee, which is now required to review prisoners who are terminally ill, of advanced age, or physically incapacitated, and to recommend bail, parole, remission or release. For a terminally ill prisoner, the route runs through screening by the prison medical officer, then review by that committee, then referral to the District Medical Board, which decides whether the illness is terminal and can issue a certificate; the Board's recommendation then goes to the State Government. Gather the medical records now — hospital papers, diagnosis, treatment history — because the medical board's assessment is the hinge on which the whole thing turns. Keep a copy of everything you submit, and ask for the tracking number the application should be given on the e-Prisons Portal. If release is refused, ask for the reasons in writing: the Court has directed that decisions be reasoned and open to judicial review, so a written refusal is what lets your advocate challenge it. And note the timing — the three-month deadline for States to notify their policies runs out in the middle of October 2026, and the Supreme Court will examine what each State has actually done on 19 January 2027. If your State has not published a policy, that itself is now something a court can be asked about. You can use NyaySahay to understand the terms and prepare your questions, but for a matter of this kind, deal with the DLSA directly — it is free, and it is the body the Supreme Court has put at the centre of this process.
Source
Supreme Court of India, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, 16 July 2026. Citation: 2026 INSC 713. Read the full judgment.
Published 21 July 2026 · NyaySahay