SC Issues Guidelines to Safeguard Rights of Persons With Disabilities in Jails

The Supreme Court has on July 15, 2025 declared that the State has a constitutional and moral obligation to uphold the rights of prisoners with disabilities, which includes not only ensuring non-discriminatory treatment but also enabling their effective rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said, this court emphasises that reasonable accommodations are not optional, but integral to any humane and just carceral system.

The court said, 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, the court pointed out.

"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," the bench said.

The court pointed out unavailability of interpreters, accessible communication formats, or assistive technologies during investigation and trial hinders the right to a fair hearing. This results in miscommunication, delays, and the denial of justice. These systemic omissions constitute indirect discrimination and disproportionately burden persons with disabilities – entrenching their social exclusion.

Dealing with a plea by L Muruganatham, an advocate, suffering from Becker Muscular Dystrophy, a progressively degenerative locomotive disability, the court issued directions 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 said.

The court found no comprehensive legal framework has yet been developed to secure enforceable rights for disabled prisoners facing systemic neglect.

"This court expresses 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," the bench said.

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, the bench added.

The court felt, "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."

The appellant raised the issue of lack of facilities and unavailability of proper care, including essential foods during his wrongful incarceration in a property dispute. He was aggrieved with the Madras High Court's order only enhancing compensation to Rs five lakh from Rs one lakh awarded by the State Human Rights Commission.

The court noted, while it is evident that the appellant did not receive certain medical and dietary facilities appropriate to his condition during incarceration, the records indicate that he remained in the prison hospital throughout and was provided with some special amenities recognising his disability.

"The absence of specific provisions, such as protein-rich food or specialised medical interventions appears to stem from institutional limitations within the prison system rather than from any deliberate neglect or malice on the part of the prison authorities. Hence, these shortcomings do not amount, per se, to a violation of human rights attributable to the jail authorities," the bench said.

The court held mere non-supply of preferred or costly food items cannot ipso facto be treated as a violation of fundamental rights.

"The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution undoubtedly extends to all prisoners, including those with disabilities. However, this does not confer a right to demand personalised or luxurious food choices. The State’s obligation is to ensure that every inmate, including those with disabilities, receives adequate, nutritious, and medically appropriate food, subject to medical certification," the bench said.

The court emphasised prisons are correctional institutions, not extensions of civil society’s comforts. The non-supply of non-essential or indulgent items does not amount to a constitutional or human rights violation unless it results in demonstrable harm to health or dignity, it added.

Considering the nature of the appellant’s disability (assessed at 80%), the progressive deterioration of his health during custody, and the ongoing treatment, he requires, the High Court was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs one lakh to Rs five lakh.

"We find this amount to be fair, just, and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore, see no reason to interfere with the same," the bench said.

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, the bench said.

Among the directions for immediate and time bound compliance are:

(1) All prison authorities shall promptly identify prisoners with disabilities at the time of admission.

(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.

(5) The prison authorities shall ensure complete compliance with Sections 40 and 45 of the RPwD Act, 2016, 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.

(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 from the date of this judgment, detailing all steps taken in furtherance of these directions.

Case Title: L Muruganatham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.