Supreme Court Issues Directions To All Prison Authorities
The Supreme Court has directed all prison authorities to promptly identify prisoners with disabilities at the time of admission.
The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal filed by a physically challenged Advocate, challenging the final Order of the Madras High Court.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan in furtherance of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), and India’s international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), issued the following directions for immediate and time-bound compliance –
1) All prison authorities shall promptly identify prisoners with disabilities at the time of admission. Each prisoner shall be given an opportunity to declare any disability and provide information about their specific needs.
1.1) All rules, regulations, and essential information about prison life shall be provided to such prisoners in accessible and understandable formats (e.g., Braille, large print, sign language, or simplified language).
2) All prison premises shall be equipped with wheelchair-friendly spaces, accessible toilets, ramps, and sensory-safe environments to ensure universal accessibility.
3) All prisons shall designate and maintain dedicated spaces for physiotherapy, psychotherapy and other necessary therapeutic services.
4) A State-level access audit of all prisons in Tamil Nadu shall be completed within six months by an expert committee comprising officials from the Social Welfare Department, the Department for the Welfare of Differently Abled Persons, and certified access auditors.
4.1) Periodic audits shall thereafter be conducted and updated regularly in accordance with the Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India (2021).
5) The prison authorities shall ensure complete compliance with Sections 40 and 45 of the RPwD Act, Rule 15 of the 2017 Rules and the Harmonized Guidelines, 2021 in all prison infrastructure and services.
6) The State shall provide healthcare for prisoners with disabilities equivalent to that available in the community, including access to physiotherapy, speech therapy, psychiatric services, and assistive devices (such as wheelchairs, hearing aids, and crutches).
7) All prison medical officers shall be adequately trained and sensitized to address disabling conditions, ensuring provision of appropriate accommodations and treatment without discrimination or bias. Furthermore, regular awareness and sensitization programmes shall be conducted in all prisons.
8) Every prisoner with a disability shall be provided a nutritious and medically appropriate diet, tailored to their specific health and dietary needs.
9) Lifesaving treatments, including regular and need-based physiotherapy and psychotherapy must be made available on-site or through linkage with government health facilities.
10) All prison staff shall undergo comprehensive training on the rights of persons with disabilities. This training shall include:
– awareness of equality and non-discrimination principles
– proper handling of disability-related challenges
– use of appropriate language and behaviour, as per the UN Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs.
11) The State Prison Manual shall be reviewed and appropriately amended within six months to ensure conformity with the RPwD Act, 2016 and the UNCRPD.
12) The State shall undertake periodic consultations with civil society organisations working in the disability sector to develop inclusive policies and identify accommodations based on real needs.
13) The State shall constitute a monitoring committee to conduct periodic inspections and submit compliance reports every three months.
14) The State shall maintain and update disaggregated data on the disability status of prisoners, including records on accessibility, reasonable accommodations, and medical requirements.
15) The Director General of Prisons shall file a comprehensive compliance report before the State Human Rights Commission within three months, detailing all steps taken in furtherance of these directions.
Appellant-Advocate L. muruganantham appeared as party-in-person while Senior AAG Amit Anand Tiwari represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant who was an Advocate, was a physically challenged person suffering from Becker Muscular Dystrophy, a progressively degenerative locomotive disability. He was assessed to have 70% disability in 2013, which increased to 80% in 2020. According to him, he also suffered from autism and mental illness. It was alleged that due to a civil dispute, a false complaint was lodged against him and his aged mother by a person who was a henchman of his paternal uncle and the same was registered as an FIR for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Based on the said FIR, the Appellant was arrested and was allegedly harassed and tortured. He was then produced before the Judicial Magistrate who remanded him to judicial custody. It was further alleged that during the Appellant’s incarceration at the Central Prison, the Respondent failed to provide proper food, medical treatment, and care as required under the RPwD Act.
The prison lacked infrastructure and facilities necessary for prisoners with disabilities, and the officials were allegedly insensitive and ill-informed regarding the rights of persons with disabilities. Thereafter, the Appellant was released on bail and subsequently, he filed a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), seeking compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs for the deprivation of life and liberty during incarceration. He also sought directions for the payment of Rs.2 crores to the Disability Rights Public Fund under the RPwD Act for violations of his human, fundamental, and statutory rights, and for action against the erring officials. The SHRC directed the State to pay Rs. 1 lakh to the Appellant and being aggrieved, he filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The High Court partly allowed his Petition and hence, he was before the Apex Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, remarked, “Prisons are often regarded as the “tail-end” of the criminal justice system historically designed for rigid discipline, harsh conditions, and minimal liberties. While modern penological principles advocate rehabilitation over retribution, the current prison infrastructure and operational systems in India remain grossly inadequate – especially when it comes to meeting the needs of prisoners with disabilities.”
The Court said that in this case, though the deficiencies in prison facilities may not be directly attributable to the Respondent authorities, they highlight the urgent need for prison reforms, particularly the implementation of disability-sensitive infrastructure and protocols.
“This Court is conscious of the systemic neglect in prison infrastructure, especially in relation to the needs of prisoners with disabilities. … Despite clear directions, no comprehensive legal framework has yet been developed to secure enforceable rights for disabled prisoners facing systemic neglect”it added.
The Court expressed its deep concern over the plight of incarcerated individuals with disabilities, who are among the most marginalized and vulnerable groups, within the justice system.
“The social and structural barriers they face in society are only magnified within the prison environment. Unlike the minimal safeguards afforded to women prisoners, there is currently no specific legal or policy framework that guarantees dignity, accessibility, and protection for persons with disabilities or for members of the transgender community in prisons. From the stage of arrest through trial and incarceration, persons with disabilities face systemic disadvantage due to the lack of training and sensitivity among police and prison personnel”it further observed.
Adequate and Appropriate facilities for prisoners with disabilities
The Court noted that most prison facilities are structurally inaccessible to individuals with mobility, sensory, or cognitive impairments and institutional routines and infrastructure are not designed to accommodate diverse needs, making it difficult or at times impossible – for such prisoners to use toilets, dining areas, libraries, or health clinics.
“Additionally, due to the absence of trained caregivers or appropriate custodial policies, persons with disabilities are often denied help with essential daily activities such as bathing, dressing, or eating. This neglect results in indignity, mental distress, and, at times, serious physical harm”it said.
The Court was of the view that such inaccessibility and denial of basic care are not mere administrative lapses; they amount to violations of fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
“They also breach provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016 – specifically Sections 6, 25, and 38 – which mandate the State to ensure healthcare and non-discriminatory treatment for persons with disabilities, including those in custody. Furthermore, under Article 15 of the UNCRPD, to which India is a signatory, any cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of disabled persons in detention is strictly prohibited”it also noted.
Moreover, the Court emphasized that persons with disabilities must be provided healthcare equivalent to that available in the general community and logistical or financial limitations cannot be cited to justify a withdrawal of this obligation.
“Lawful incarceration does not suspend the right to human dignity. The punishment lies only in the restriction of liberty – not in the denial of humane treatment or reasonable accommodations. Failure to meet these obligations inflicts disproportionate suffering on disabled prisoners and betrays the constitutional role of the State as a custodian – not a tormentor – of those it detains”it observed.
The Court said that despite clear constitutional and statutory mandates, the lack of disaggregated data on disability continues to hinder targeted policy intervention.
“Most State prison manuals remain outdated and uninformed by developments in disability law and rights-based discourse. They frequently conflate sensory or physical disabilities with mental illness or cognitive decline, thereby eroding the distinct legal right to reasonable accommodation. This conflation promotes harmful stereotypes and obstructs disabled inmates from claiming their lawful entitlements”it remarked.
Conclusion
The Court emphasised that the State has a constitutional and moral obligation to uphold the rights of prisoners with disabilities and this includes not only ensuring non-discriminatory treatment but also enabling their effective rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
“This Court emphasizes that reasonable accommodations are not optional, but integral to any humane and just carceral system. A systemic transformation is urgently required – one grounded in compassion, accountability, and a firm constitutional commitment to dignity and equality. The disabilities of incarcerated individuals must not become a basis for further deprivation or suffering; rather, the prison system must evolve to affirm their rights and provide the care necessary for rehabilitation”it concluded.
The Court clarified that the directions are issued in the larger public interest to uphold the dignity, and healthcare rights of prisoners with disabilities in all custodial settings.
“The obligations herein are rooted in India’s constitutional guarantees, statutory mandates, and international human rights commitments”it added.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeal and issued necessary directions.
Cause Title- L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 844)
Appearance:
Appellant: Party-in-person
Respondents: Sr. AAG AMIT Anand Tiwari, Ars Sabarish Subramanian, M Karthiga, Advocates Dvyani Gupta, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Sashriya Havavia, Tanvi Anand, and Danish Saifi.