Supreme Court: In a civil appeal filed by an Advocate against the order passed by the Madras High Court, the division bench of JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*, JJ. in furtherance of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘RPwD Act’), and India’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 (‘UNCPRD’), issued the following directions:
- Disability Identification at Admission
All prison authorities shall promptly identify prisoners with disabilities at the time of admission. Each inmate must be given an opportunity to declare any disability and specify their support needs. - Accessible Communication
All prison rules, regulations, and essential information shall be provided in accessible formats, including Braille, large print, sign language, or simplified language, as required. - Universal Accessibility in Prisons
All prison premises shall be equipped with wheelchair-accessible spaces, toilets, ramps, and sensory-safe environments to ensure full accessibility. - Dedicated Therapy Spaces
Each prison shall maintain designated areas for physiotherapy, psychotherapy, and other therapeutic services. - State-Level Access Audit
A comprehensive access audit of all prisons in Tamil Nadu shall be conducted within six months by a committee comprising officials from:○ Social Welfare Department
○ Department for the Welfare of Differently Abled Persons
○ Certified access auditors
- Periodic Accessibility Audits
Regular audits shall follow, in accordance with the Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility (2021). - Compliance with Legal Standards
All prisons must comply with:○ Sections 40 and 45 of the RPwD Act, 2016
○ Rule 15 of the 2017 Rules
○ Harmonized Guidelines, 2021
-
Healthcare Parity
Prisoners with disabilities must be provided healthcare equivalent to that available in the general community, including:
○ Physiotherapy
○ Speech therapy
○ Psychiatric services
○ Assistive devices (e.g., wheelchairs, hearing aids, crutches)
- Training for Medical Officers
All prison medical officers shall be trained to address disability-specific conditions and provide appropriate, unbiased care. Regular sensitization programs must be held in all prisons. - Disability-Appropriate Diet
Each disabled inmate shall receive a nutritious and medically appropriate diet, tailored to their specific health requirements. - Life-Saving Treatments
Necessary treatments, including physiotherapy and psychotherapy, must be provided on-site or through linkage with government health facilities. - Disability Rights Training for Staff
All prison staff must undergo comprehensive training, covering:○ Principles of equality and non-discrimination
○ Proper handling of disability-related needs
○ Use of respectful and appropriate language (as per the UN Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs)
- Amendments to the Prison Manual
○ The State Prison Manual must be reviewed and amended within six months to conform to RPwD Act, 2016 and UNCRPD.
○ A dedicated section shall be added to prohibit discrimination and mandate reasonable accommodation for prisoners with disabilities.
○ The updated Manual must be prominently displayed in all prison facilities.
- Consultation with Civil Society
The State shall regularly consult with civil society organisations working in the disability sector to inform inclusive policy-making and determine accommodations based on real needs. -
Monitoring Committee
A monitoring committee shall be established to conduct quarterly inspections and submit compliance reports.
- Disaggregated Data Maintenance
The State shall maintain updated disaggregated data on:○ Disability status of prisoners
○ Accessibility measures
○ Accommodations provided
○ Medical requirements
-
Compliance Report to SHRC
The Director General of Prisons shall file a comprehensive compliance report with the State Human Rights Commission within three months of the date of this judgment, detailing all steps taken in furtherance of these directions.
Background
The appellant, an advocate suffering from Becker Muscular Dystrophy, a progressively degenerative locomotor disability, was assessed with 70% disability in 2013, which increased to 80% in 2020. He also claims to suffer from autism and mental illness.
According to the appellant, due to an ongoing civil dispute, a false criminal complaint was filed against him and his elderly mother by some individual, allegedly acting at the behest of the appellant’s paternal uncle. The complaint was registered for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(ii) of the Penal Code, 1860. Following this, the appellant was arrested on 29-02-2020 by respondent 2, who he alleges subjected him to harassment and torture. He was subsequently produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Udumalaipet, and remanded to judicial custody.
During his incarceration at the Central Prison, Coimbatore, the appellant alleged that respondent 3 failed to provide adequate food, medical care, and support as required under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘RPwD Act’). He further claimed that the prison lacked accessible infrastructure and that officials were indifferent and uninformed about the rights of persons with disabilities. The appellant was granted bail on 10-03-2020.
Subsequently, the appellant approached the State Human Rights Commission (‘SHRC’) by filing Complaint, seeking ₹50,00,000 as compensation for the violation of his life and liberty. He also sought the imposition of a penalty of ₹2 crores to be paid into the Disability Rights Public Fund under the RPwD Act, 2016 for the violation of his human, fundamental, and statutory rights, and for action against the responsible officials.
After hearing the matter, the SHRC disposed of the complaint via order dated 27-08-2021. Aggrieved by this decision, particularly the dismissal of the complaint against respondent 3, non-consideration of allegations against the State of Tamil Nadu, and only partial relief granted against respondent 2, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court.
In the writ petition, the appellant sought quashment of SHRC’s order. He further prayed for compensation of ₹50,00,000 from respondents for the alleged human rights violations and sought directions to State for the implementation of the RPwD Act, 2016 and the UNCPRD specifically in relation to the functioning of the Police and Prison Departments in Tamil Nadu.
The High Court, by the common order impugned herein, partly allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant and dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent 2. Aggrieved by the partial relief granted and the dismissal of certain claims, the appellant preferred the present appeal before this Court.
Issues
(A) Whether the order of the High Court enhancing compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- for the alleged violations committed against the appellant, while dismissing the complaint against respondent 3, and partly allowing the complaint against respondent 2, calls for interference by this Court; and
(B) Whether adequate and appropriate facilities are being made available to prisoners with disabilities during incarceration in the prisons of Tamil Nadu, in compliance with the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016 and UNCPRD.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that both the SHRC and the High Court had unequivocally found that the FIR, arrest, and subsequent incarceration of the appellant were orchestrated at the behest of his paternal uncle, driven by an ulterior motive to usurp the appellant’s property. The arrest was held to be illegal and in violation of the procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court. Crucially, the authorities had failed to take into account the appellant’s disability status. These findings were supported by documentary evidence, and the Court found no reason to interfere with them.
The next issue before the Court was whether the compensation of ₹1,00,000/- awarded by the SHRC and later enhanced to ₹5,00,000/- by the High Court, warranted further enhancement.
While the record clearly indicated that the appellant did not receive all the medical and dietary care suited to his condition during incarceration, it was also noted that he remained in the prison hospital throughout and was provided with certain special amenities in recognition of his disability. The absence of more tailored provisions, such as protein-rich diets or specialised medical treatments, appeared to arise from institutional constraints within the prison system, rather than from intentional neglect or malice by the prison authorities. Therefore, the Court held that these shortcomings did not constitute a violation of human rights on the part of the jail officials.
The Court observed that the appellant had specifically contended he was not provided adequate protein-rich food, such as eggs, chicken, and nuts, on a daily basis during his incarceration. While acknowledging that persons with disabilities form a particularly vulnerable class entitled to reasonable accommodation under both domestic law and international conventions, the Court clarified that the mere non-provision of preferred or expensive food items cannot, ipso facto, amount to a violation of fundamental rights.
The Court affirmed that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution extends to all prisoners, including those with disabilities. However, it does not grant a right to demand personalised or luxurious dietary choices. The State’s constitutional obligation is to ensure that all inmates, particularly those with medical or disability-related needs, are provided adequate, nutritious, and medically appropriate food, as may be certified by medical professionals.
The Court emphasised that prisons are correctional institutions, not extensions of the comforts available in civil society. The non-supply of non-essential or indulgent items does not, by itself, constitute a violation of constitutional or human rights unless it results in demonstrable harm to an inmate’s health or dignity.
In assessing the present case, the Court took note of the appellant’s 80% disability, the progressive deterioration of his health during custody, and the ongoing medical treatment he continues to require. In light of these factors, the Court held that the High Court was justified in enhancing the compensation from ₹1,00,000 to ₹5,00,000. The Court found this enhanced amount to be fair, just, and reasonable, given the facts and circumstances of the case, and thus saw no reason to interfere with the High Court’s determination.
The Court said that the deficiencies in prison infrastructure and facilities, though evident, could not be directly attributed to the respondent authorities in this case. They could not be held personally liable for those shortcomings. The High Court’s direction to initiate departmental proceedings against respondent 2, and the dismissal of the complaint against respondent 3 (the prison authorities), were found to be well-reasoned and based on a careful consideration of the factual and evidentiary record.
The Court further observed that the appellant had not produced any evidence to establish wilful negligence or deliberate omission on the part of the prison officials that would rise to the level of a human rights violation. In the absence of such material, the Court held that there was no justification to disturb the conclusions arrived at by the High Court.
Adequate and Appropriate facilities for prisoners with disabilities
The Court observed that prisons are often seen as the “tail-end” of the criminal justice system, historically structured around rigid discipline, harsh conditions, and minimal liberties. While modern penological principles emphasise rehabilitation over retribution, the existing prison infrastructure and operational systems in India remain grossly inadequate, particularly in addressing the needs of prisoners with disabilities.
In the present case, although the deficiencies in prison facilities could not be directly attributed to the respondent authorities, the Court held that these issues underscore the urgent need for systemic prison reforms. Specifically, there is a pressing requirement for disability-sensitive infrastructure, policies, and protocols. The Court expressed concern over the persistent neglect of disability-related needs within the prison system and emphasised the necessity for institutional change to ensure dignity, accessibility, and equality for all incarcerated individuals, including those with disabilities.
The Court noted that despite the directions issued in Shri Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka, (1997) 2 SCC 642, no comprehensive legal framework has yet been developed to secure enforceable rights for prisoners with disabilities, who continue to face systemic neglect within the prison system.
The Court expressed deep concern over the plight of incarcerated individuals with disabilities, recognizing them as among the most marginalized and vulnerable groups within the criminal justice system. The social and structural barriers they face in society are amplified within the prison environment. Unlike the limited safeguards available for women prisoners, there exists no specific legal or policy framework that guarantees dignity, accessibility, or protection for persons with disabilities or members of the transgender community in Indian prisons.
The Court noted that at the stage of arrest through trial and incarceration, persons with disabilities face systemic disadvantage, largely due to the lack of training and sensitivity among police and prison personnel. Most prison facilities remain structurally inaccessible to individuals with mobility, sensory, or cognitive impairments. The institutional routines and infrastructure fail to accommodate diverse needs, making it difficult, or at times impossible, for such inmates to access basic facilities like toilets, dining areas, libraries, or health clinics. In the absence of trained caregivers or appropriate custodial policies, individuals with disabilities are often denied assistance with daily activities such as bathing, dressing, and eating. This neglect results in indignity, mental trauma, and at times, serious physical harm.
The Court observed that such inaccessibility and denial of basic care are not mere administrative oversights. They amount to violations of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. These actions also contravene provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), notably Sections 6, 25, and 38, which impose a statutory duty on the State to ensure non-discriminatory treatment and accessible healthcare, including for those in custody. Further, Article 15 of the UNCRPD to which India is a signatory, prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of persons with disabilities in detention.
The Court underlined that persons with disabilities must be provided healthcare equivalent to that available in the general community, including access to physiotherapy, speech therapy, psychiatric care, and assistive devices such as wheelchairs, hearing aids, or crutches. Prison authorities are legally obliged to coordinate with public healthcare systems to ensure uninterrupted care, and logistical or financial limitations cannot justify any withdrawal of this obligation.
International legal instruments further reinforce these duties. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules) require prompt and adequate healthcare and stress the need to accommodate prisoners with disabilities.
The Court concluded by affirming that lawful incarceration does not extinguish the right to human dignity. The punishment lies solely in the restriction of liberty, not in the denial of humane treatment or reasonable accommodations. The State, as a constitutional custodian, must protect and care for all individuals in its custody, and failure to meet these obligations inflicts disproportionate suffering on disabled prisoners, violating both domestic and international legal standards.
The Court noted with concern that most State prison manuals remain outdated, failing to incorporate developments in disability law and rights-based discourse. These manuals often conflate physical or sensory disabilities with mental illness or cognitive decline, thereby undermining the distinct legal right to reasonable accommodation. Such conflation not only perpetuates harmful stereotypes but also prevents disabled inmates from asserting their lawful entitlements.
The Court emphasised that the State bears both a constitutional and moral obligation to uphold the rights of prisoners with disabilities. This obligation extends beyond non-discriminatory treatment; it includes ensuring their effective rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Importantly, the Court underscored that reasonable accommodations are not optional but are an integral component of any humane and just carceral system. A systemic transformation is urgently required, rooted in compassion, accountability, and a firm constitutional commitment to dignity and equality.
[L Muruganatam v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1444, decided on 15-07-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice R. Mahadevan
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s): Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Saushriya Havelia, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. Balaji. T, Adv. Mr. Bharat Deep Singh, Adv. Ms. M Karthiga, AOR Mr. Dipanshu Tomar, Adv.
