Raj HC quashes rejection of prisoner’s Open Air Camp transfer, slams ‘cursory’ and ‘unreasoned’ administrative orders

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order passed by the State Level Open Air Camp Committee that rejected a prisoner’s application for transfer to an open-air facility, holding that “cryptic and opaque” administrative decisions are fundamentally flawed and antithetical to the rule of law. Justice Farjand Ali delivered the ruling in Nirmal Dudani vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 305/2026), emphasizing that recording reasons is not a mere procedural formality but the very essence of transparent governance.

The petitioner, Nirmal Dudani, is currently serving a twenty-year rigorous imprisonment sentence at Central Jail, Udaipur, following his conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. He had applied for a transfer to an Open Air Camp under the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972. However, the State Level Committee rejected his application on October 7, 2025, primarily on the grounds of the nature of his offence and the fact that he had only completed eight years of his sentence.

The petitioner challenged the rejection as discriminatory, pointing out that other convicts under the NDPS Act—specifically naming Mohan Lal and Mangilal—had been granted similar transfers to Open Air Camps in 2019. He argued that being similarly circumstanced, the denial of identical relief was arbitrary and lacked justification. Upon examining the record, the High Court observed that the impugned rejection order was “exceedingly cursory,” consisting of only a single-line observation resolving not to forward the petitioner’s case without articulating any objective grounds.

The Court elaborated on the jurisprudential significance of “speaking orders,” stating that reasons serve as the essential link between the material on record and the ultimate conclusion. Justice Ali noted that an order bereft of reasons deprives the affected person of understanding the decision and frustrates the possibility of effective judicial review. The Bench further clarified that while the law entrusts public authorities with discretionary power, such discretion cannot metamorphose into “unfettered authority” or whim.

The ruling highlighted that the Open Air Camp scheme is fundamentally rehabilitative in character. Therefore, the decision-making process must reflect a judicious balance between institutional discipline and reformative philosophy. The Court found that the Committee failed to indicate whether the petitioner’s conduct in prison was unsatisfactory or if any adverse material actually existed against him, rendering the rejection a “bald and unexplained assertion”.

Holding that the order suffered from the vice of arbitrariness and manifest non-application of mind, the High Court quashed the Committee’s decision. Instead of granting the relief outright, the Court remitted the matter back to the competent authority. The respondents have been directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application afresh in strict accordance with the 1972 Rules and pass a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order within three months.

Case Title

Nirmal Dudani vs State Of Rajasthan

Case Number

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 305/2026

Court

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Bench

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Farjand Ali

Date of Order

07 March 2026

Advocates

For the Petitioner:

None present

For the Respondents:

Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG