E-Paper
SC orders changes for disabled in TN prisons
Issuing a slew of directions specific to Tamil Nadu, a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ordered a state level accessibility audit of all prisons within six months
Denial of accessibility and essential care to persons with disabilities incarcerated in prisons amounts to violation of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday, directing sweeping changes across jails in Tamil Nadu by providing for wheelchair-friendly spaces, accessible toilets, ramps and dedicated spaces for their therapeutic needs.
The court further noted a serious “data gap” as the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) provides detailed breakup of caste, gender and religion of prisoners but does not record their disability status.
The directions of the court came while considering a petition filed by L Muruganantham, who suffers from Becker’s Muscular dystrophy, and was incarcerated for a period of 11 days in 2020 in a Tamil Nadu jail which did not have facilities required for people with disabilities.
Issuing a slew of directions specific to Tamil Nadu, a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ordered a state level accessibility audit of all prisons within six months, training and sensitisation of prison officials, among other reforms and ordered the director general of prisons to report compliance of these measures by filing a report before the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) within three months.
“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,” the court said.
It noted that in the absence of trained caregivers or custodial policies, prisoners are often denied help with essential daily activities such as bathing, dressing and eating. This neglect results in indignity, mental distress and, at times, serious physical harm, the Court said.
“These 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 of India,” the court held.
On a close examination of the jail manual, the court found systemic deficiencies in jails and outdated prison manuals which are not in tune with the Right to Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act 2016 and judicial pronouncements made from time to time.
“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,” the court lamented.
Article 15 of the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), to which India is a signatory, prohibits any cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of disabled persons in detention.
“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 judgment said. It expressed deep concern over the plight of incarcerated individuals with disabilities, who are among the most marginalized and vulnerable groups, within the justice system.
While prisons form the “tail-end” of the criminal justice system, the court noted how persons with disability are deprived of the right to a fair hearing due to the unavailability of interpreters, accessible communication formats, or assistive technologies during investigation and trial.
“Social and structural barriers they face in society are only magnified within the prison environment. Most prison facilities are structurally inaccessible to individuals with mobility, sensory, or cognitive impairments,” the court said.
The petitioner Muruganantham had approached the top court challenging a November 2022 decision of the Madras high court granting him compensation of ₹5 lakh for the lack of facilities available for him in jail. Although he claimed enhanced compensation claiming that he was not provided with adequate protein-rich food, such as eggs, chicken and nuts, on a daily basis, the bench refused his plea for further compensation.
“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 court held.
It held that the jail was not at fault as “prisons are correctional institutions – not extensions of civil society’s comforts” and 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.
