Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today(July 15) observed that while the State has moral and constitutional obligations to ensure that prison facilities are as the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2016, the right to reasonable accommodation does not extend to creating an obligation on authorities to ensure personalised or costly food items to prisoners with disabilities.

It said that the inability of the prison authorities to provide preferred diets to prisoners with disabilities stems from institutional shortcomings and cannot be said to be a violation of human rights.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, while issuing guidelines for prisons across Tamil Nadu, observed:

In this case, the petitioner, an advocate with disability, was arrested in connection with a civil dispute. He alleged custodial torture by the police officer during arrest and failure of the prison authorities to provide basic facilities such as a protein-rich diet, such as eggs, meat, chicken, nuts on a daily basis etc, and adequate medical treatment.

When the petitioner was granted bail, he approached the Tamil Nadu Human Rights Commission seeking compensation for the violation of his human rights by the police officer and the prison authorities. The commission awarded him 1 lac compensation and directed disciplinary action against the police officer. It was held that the arrest was illegal. However, this complaint against prison authorities was dismissed as no human rights violation was attributable to them.

Against this, he filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court, which enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5,00,000. But it dismissed the complaint against the jail authorities, taking a similar view as was taken by the commission.

Upholding these views, the judgment authored by R Mahadevan observed that as against the petitioner's claim that he was not provided with protein-rich food or specialised medical intervention, it stems not from the deliberate neglect or malice on the part of the jail authorities but from institutional limitations within the prison system. Therefore, the court observed that the shortcomings do not amount to, per se, violation of human rights attributable to the jail authorities.

Further, the court held that prisons are correctional institutions and cannot be considered as an extension of civil society's comfort. Therefore, it found that the compensation enhanced by the high court was justified and needed no interference.

Prisons are "tail-end," need reforms

While the court clarified that the deficiencies are per se not attributable to the jail authorities, it nevertheless emphasised the current need for prison reforms, particularly the implementation of disability-sensitive infrastructure.

"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. 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 said that most prison facilities are structurally inaccessible to individuals with mobility, sensory or cognitive impairment. Such inaccessibility and denial of basic care violates Article 14 and 21 and are in breach of Sections 6, 25, and 28 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, which mandate States to ensure healthcare and non-discriminatory treatment for persons with disabilities, including those in custody.

Concluding, the Court also flagged the lack of disaggregated data on persons with disability. It said that the data gap has far-reaching implications.

"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."

Case Title: L. MURUGANANTHAM v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS|SLP (C) No. 1785 OF 2023

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 702

Click Here To Read Judgment