Supreme Court: While considering a petition seeking exhaustive directions for providing appropriate legal framework and facilities to persons with Disabilities (PwD) who are undergoing incarceration in the prisons either as undertrials or convicts, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., issued another set of directions in addition to salutary directions issued in L. Muruganantham v. State of T.N., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1444, which shall also be read in conjunction with the mandate of L. Muruganantham judgment:
-
The directions issued in L. Muruganantham (supra) shall be extended to all the States and the Union Territories, to ensure that the principles are adopted mutatis mutandis within their prison systems as well.
-
Every State and Union Territories shall establish a robust, independent and accessible grievance redressal mechanism specifically designed for prisoners with disabilities. The said mechanism shall ensure prompt registration, effective monitoring and timely resolution of complaints, so as to safeguard inmates from systemic neglect, abuse and discriminatory practices.
-
Appropriate facilities shall be created to ensure that prisoners with disabilities have meaningful access to inclusive education within the prison system. No inmate shall be deprived of the opportunity to pursue educational programmes solely on account of disability, and suitable adjustments shall be made to facilitate their effective participation.
-
Section 89 of the RPwd Act shall mutatis mutandis be made applicable to prison establishments across the country. All prison authorities shall take adequate steps to disseminate awareness of the obligations flowing from the said provision to all officers, staff, legal-aid personnel, and other stakeholders.
-
Counsel appearing for the petitioner had sought directions for the provision of appropriate assistive devices, mobility aids, and other support equipment to prisoners with disabilities. However, considering the crucial issue relating to prison security and the practical modalities of implementation, Court, for the present, deemed it appropriate to call upon all States and Union Territories to indicate in its compliance report the structured institutional mechanism proposed to ensure the regular availability, maintenance, and secure provision of assistive devices, mobility aids, and other disability-support equipment for prisoners with disabilities. The affidavit shall clearly outline the procedures, infrastructure, procurement systems, supervision protocols, and security measures by which such assistive aids will be made accessible to inmates, enabling them to carry out their daily activities with dignity without compromising institutional safety.
-
Prisoners with benchmark disabilities shall be entitled to enhanced visitation provisions, in order to ensure sustained family support, emotional well-being, and continuous monitoring of their special needs. The specific modalities for such visitation shall be framed by the concerned departmental head of each State and Union Territory so as to balance security considerations with the imperative of accessibility and humane treatment.
Submissions:
The petitioner that the prison system all over the country is not extending to the PwD inmates the requisite facilities mandated for addressing their specific needs. Instead, these prisoners are being housed under the same conditions as non-PwD inmates, thereby subjecting them to identical treatment in total disregard to their specialized requirements.
The petitioner claimed that the prevailing prison manuals of most of the States across the country are deficient in incorporating mandatory provisions relating to ramps, accessible infrastructure, and other essential accommodations for PwD, which is in direct contravention of the statutory mandate of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). This omission causes issues of basic mobility healthcare and numerous other issues to such prisoners within prison premises, thereby violating the mandate of RPwD Act. The petitioner further highlighted additional issues being faced by prisoners with disabilities such as a mechanism to provide assistive aids necessary for daily activities; opportunity to seek inclusive education etc.
Court’s Assessment:
Considering the submissions, the Court remarked that a lot of issues raised by the petitioner in this writ petition have been covered by the salutary directions in L. Muruganantham (supra). However, the Court issued the afore-stated additional directions considering the petitioner’s submissions.
The Court further directed all States and Union Territories are hereby directed to place on record a comprehensive compliance report before the Court within four months, indicating the measures undertaken for effectuating the directions issued in L. Muruganantham (supra) as well as those mandated herein. The report shall clearly set out the steps adopted, the progress achieved, and the modalities evolved for ensuring faithful implementation of the aforesaid directions in the prisons located within their jurisdictions.
[Sathyan Naravoor v. Union of India, Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 182/2025, order dated 2-12-2025]
*Order by Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, Adv. Mr. Mohammed Sadique T.a., AOR Ms. Thulasi K Raj, Adv. Ms. Aparna Menon, Adv. Ms. Chinnu Maria Antony, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Chitrangda Rashtravara, Adv. Alankar Gupta, Adv. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. C. K. Dr. Kk Geetha, Adv. Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Mr. Naveen Sharma, AOR Mrs. Swati Bhushan Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.k. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sanatan Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Payal Gola, Adv. Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Arjun D. Singh, Adv. Ms. Ishika Neogi, Adv. Ms. Disha Singh, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Shishir Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv. Mr. Guruprasad Naik, Adv. Mr. Dcosta Ivo Manuel Simon, AOR Mr. D K Thakur, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Tavleen Singh, Adv. Ms. Vallabhi Shukla, Adv. Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Narendra Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shattika Haldar, Adv. Mr. Aaditya A Pande, AOR MrSiddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv; Ms.Chitransha S. Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. T.k. Nayak, Adv. Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik, AOR Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR Ms. Bipasa Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Shlok Luthra, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, A.A.G. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Krishna Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Dev Aaryan, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kr. Verma, Adv. Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Adv. Mr. Shreekant N.Terdal, AOR