STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs SAJNA — C.A. No. 8536/2010

Case under Section XV. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010239482008

Filing Date

21-Aug-2008

Registration No

C.A. No. 8536/2010

Diary Number

23948/2008

Order Date

01-Oct-2010

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Disposed Off

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XV

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN

    Adv. MILIND KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SAJNA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Oct-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 09-Sep-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 20-Aug-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 12-Jul-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 28-Apr-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 29-Mar-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 23-Feb-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 13-Jan-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 04-Dec-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 28-Oct-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 11-Sep-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 31-Jul-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 15-May-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 04-May-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 21-Apr-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 02-Apr-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 25-Feb-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 12-Jan-2009
  20. 12-Jan-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 28-Nov-2008
  22. 17-Nov-2008
  23. 24-Oct-2008
  24. 20-Oct-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  25. 21-Aug-2008

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 8536/2010

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Rajasthan v. Sajna (C.A. No. 8536/2010) The Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court's 2007 directions requiring the State to implement the Prisoners Open Air Camps Rules, 1972. The Court ordered the State to immediately implement directions for conducting surveys of eligible prisoners and holding Advisory Committee meetings twice yearly. Regarding establishing camps at each district headquarters, the Court permitted phased implementation subject to resource availability, noting ten camps already exist. The respondent prisoner was directed to be considered for transfer to an existing camp, given his sentence ending in March 2011. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case