Facts of the Case

The petitioner, an advocate and a person with multiple disabilities, Becker Muscular Dystrophy, Autism Spectrum Disorder, and associated psychological conditions was incarcerated in a Tamil Nadu prison in connection with a civil dispute. During his detention, he was denied essential accommodations including accessible toilets, ramps, nutritious food suited to his condition, necessary medical care, and a sensory-safe environment for rest. These omissions resulted in significant deterioration of his health. Upon being released on bail, he filed a complaint with the Tamil Nadu Human Rights Commission (TNHRC), which awarded him ₹1 lakh in compensation and recommended that all prisons in the state be made compliant with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The TNHRC also referenced the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Rajiv Raturi v. Union of India (2017) that recognized accessible infrastructure as an extension of the right to life under Article 21. Dissatisfied with continuing inaccessibility and non-compliance, and after the dismissal of his writ petition by the Madras High Court on November 29, 2022, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court under a Special Leave Petition.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that the State had failed to discharge its constitutional and statutory duties towards prisoners with disabilities. He contended that his treatment in prison violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and the right to life with dignity. By denying him reasonable accommodations, the prison authorities had subjected him to further suffering and exclusion, aggravating his condition. He highlighted that the prison administration did not have protocols for identifying or supporting disabled inmates, and lacked accessible infrastructure, medical care, communication mechanisms, or dietary provisions. The petitioner submitted that these failures were in direct contravention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), to which India is a signatory. He therefore sought systemic reform, including amendment of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual, infrastructural upgrades, access audits, training of prison staff, and time-bound compliance reporting.

Contentions of the Respondent

The State of Tamil Nadu submitted that while there may have been certain infrastructural and administrative gaps, there was no deliberate or wilful violation of the petitioner’s rights. The State maintained that the petitioner was provided necessary care to the extent feasible within the constraints of the existing prison system. It argued that the administration was already in the process of reviewing and updating its Prison Manual to align with modern standards, and that the petitioner had already received adequate redress in the form of compensation from the Tamil Nadu Human Rights Commission. The State emphasized that significant changes to the prison system involved logistical challenges, resource constraints, and required gradual implementation. It requested the Court to consider the broader context and allow the executive necessary flexibility in prioritizing reforms.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice R. Mahadevan, firmly rejected the State’s justifications and emphasized that constitutional values and statutory mandates could not be deferred on grounds of administrative convenience. The Court began by reiterating that disability rights must be fully respected within the carceral system. It observed: “The State has a constitutional and moral obligation to uphold the rights of prisoners with disabilities. This includes not only ensuring non-discriminatory treatment but also enabling their effective rehabilitation and reintegration into society.” The Court declared that reasonable accommodation is not a favour but a right grounded in constitutional equality and international law. It stated: “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.”

Turning to institutional frameworks, the Court stressed the importance of the Board of Visitors, as provided under the Model Prison Manual, 2016. Citing the Manual, the Court noted: “The visitation system is a pragmatic shift from isolation of prisoners under custody from the outside world. Community interaction is a necessary postulate in transforming prisons as correctional institutions… The board of visitors… is the driver of such transformation by acting as a connecting thread between the authorities and prisoners.” It also quoted the Mulla Committee report: “Correctional institutions do not have to be insular. These need to have a measure of interaction with other sectors of the criminal justice system and a substantive linkage with the community.”

In reaffirming past jurisprudence, the Court referred to Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, noting the systemic failure of prison rules to reflect constitutional principles. It observed: “The model jail manual… is far from a model and is, perhaps, a product of prison officials insufficiently instructed in the imperatives of the Constitution and unawakened to the new hues of human rights.” The Court accepted the Solicitor General’s suggestion that the Board of Visitors could function as a substitute for a Prison Ombudsman: “A controllerate is the desideratum for in situ reception and redressal of grievances.”

On the need for diverse representation, the Court cited Sanjay Suri v. Delhi Administration, highlighting the role of civil society: “The Visitors’ Board should consist of people with good background, social activists, people connected with the news media, lady social workers, jurists, retired public officers from the judiciary and executive.”

Addressing systemic reform, the Court directed that prison data must be disaggregated by disability status and made public with privacy safeguards. It emphasized: “The State shall maintain and update disaggregated data on the disability status of prisoners… in compliance with Article 31 of the UNCRPD.” The Court also directed that consultations with disability rights organisations must be institutionalized: “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.”

Court’s Order

The Supreme Court issued a sweeping set of directions to the State of Tamil Nadu to ensure full compliance with constitutional norms, the RPwD Act, 2016, and the UNCRPD. The Court directed that all prisons must immediately begin identifying persons with disabilities at the time of admission and ensure that relevant rules and prison-related information are made available to them in accessible formats such as Braille, large print, sign language, or simplified language. The Court mandated infrastructural changes across all prisons in Tamil Nadu, including accessible toilets, ramps, low-sensory environments, and designated therapy spaces. A state-level access audit of all prisons was ordered to be completed within six months by a committee of certified access auditors and state officials.

The Court further directed that prison healthcare for disabled prisoners must be equivalent to that available in the community and include services such as physiotherapy, speech therapy, psychiatric care, and provision of assistive devices. All prison medical officers and staff must be trained and sensitized to the rights and needs of prisoners with disabilities, and ongoing awareness programmes were mandated. Each disabled prisoner must be provided a medically appropriate and nutritious diet, and all lifesaving treatments must be made available either on-site or through linkage with public health institutions.

The Tamil Nadu Prison Manual was directed to be reviewed and amended within six months to bring it into full alignment with the RPwD Act and the UNCRPD. The Court ordered that a monitoring committee be formed to conduct quarterly inspections and that the State maintain and publicize disaggregated data on prisoners with disabilities. Finally, the Director General of Prisons was ordered to file a comprehensive compliance report before the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission within three months detailing steps taken under these directions.

Written by Adv. Deeksha Rai