Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, finding no liability on the part of the prison authorities and confirming the enhanced compensation as appropriate.

Summary

L. Muruganantham, a person with Becker Muscular Dystrophy and autism, was arrested on a false complaint and detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore. He alleged that the prison failed to provide adequate medical care, nutrition, and disability‑friendly facilities, leading to a deterioration of his health. The State Human Rights Commission awarded him Rs.1,00,000 and directed disciplinary action against the police officer; the Madras High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,00,000, upheld the disciplinary direction, and dismissed the complaint against the prison authorities. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's order required interference and whether Tamil Nadu prisons provide appropriate facilities for disabled inmates under the RPwD Act and UNCRPD. It held that the deficiencies were not attributable to deliberate neglect by prison officials, the enhanced compensation was reasonable, and the High Court's findings should not be disturbed, while also issuing extensive systemic reform directions.

Issues considered

Whether the order of the High Court enhancing compensation to Rs.5,00,000 and dismissing the complaint against the prison authorities warrants interference by this Court.
Whether prisons in Tamil Nadu provide adequate and appropriate facilities to prisoners with disabilities in compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Art.21
Prison Act, 1894
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993s. 2(d)
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016s. 25, s. 2(h), s. 3, s. 3(5), s. 38, s. 40, s. 45, s. 6
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017s. Rule 15
Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983

Headnote

Issue for Consideration (A) Whether the order of the High Court enhancing compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- for the alleged violations committed against the appellant, while dismissing the complaint against respondent no.3, and partly allowing the complaint against respondent no.2, calls for adequate and appropriate facilities are being made available to prisoners with disabilities during incarceration in the prisons of Tamil Nadu, in compliance with the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016 and UNCPRD. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.14 and 21 – Rights of

Subjects

prisoners with disabilitiesArticle 14Article 21prison reformsRights of Persons with Disabilities ActUNCRPDcompensationreasonable accommodationboard of visitorsaccessibilityhealthcare for inmatesNelson Mandela Rules

Judgment

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 935 : 2025 INSC 844

L. Muruganantham
v.
State of Tamil Nadu & Others
(Civil Appeal No. 9487 of 2025)
15 July 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
(A) Whether the order of the High Court enhancing compensation
to Rs.5,00,000/- for the alleged violations committed against the
appellant, while dismissing the complaint against respondent no.3,
and partly allowing the complaint against respondent no.2, calls
for interference by this Court; and (B) Whether adequate and
appropriate facilities are being made available to prisoners with
disabilities during incarceration in the prisons of Tamil Nadu, in
compliance with the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016 and UNCPRD.

Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Arts.14 and 21 – Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016 – United Nations Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 – Prisoners with
disabilities – Appellant herein suffers from Becker Muscular
Dystrophy, Autism Spectrum Disorder, and associated
psychological conditions – An FIR was filed against him –
Appellant was arrested – According to the appellant, during his
incarceration, the prison authorities failed to provide him with
appropriate food, medical care, and other necessary support
considering his physical disability, which led to a deterioration
in his health – Consequently, he lodged a complaint before the
SHRC – The SHRC awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and
directed initiation of disciplinary proceedings against erring
police officer-respondent no.2 – The High Court enhanced
the compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- and awarded costs of
Rs.25,000/- to the appellant – The direction for disciplinary
action against respondent no.2, was affirmed by the High
Court and complaint against respondent no.3 (the prison
authorities) was dismissed – Whether the order passed by
the High Court require interference:

* Author
936 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Held: 1. The deficiencies in prison facilities may not be directly
attributable to the respondent authorities in the present case –
Accordingly, they cannot be held liable for the same – The direction
issued by the High Court for initiation of departmental proceedings
against respondent no.2, as well as the dismissal of the complaint
against respondent no.3 (the prison authorities), appears to be
well-reasoned and based on a careful appreciation of the facts and
evidence on record – In contrast, no material was produced by
the appellant to establish wilful negligence or deliberate omission
on the part of the prison authorities to warrant a finding of human
rights violation – There is no justification to disturb conclusions
reached by the High Court. [Para 22]
2. 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 – Mere non-supply of preferred or costly food
items cannot ipso facto be treated as a violation of fundamental
rights – 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 –
Considering the nature of the appellant’s disability (assessed at
80%), the progressive deterioration of his health during custody,
the High Court was justified in enhancing the compensation from
Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. [Paras 21.1, 21.2, 21.3]
Prison Reforms – Urgent need – Improvement of quality of
life of inmates – Discussed.

Rights of Prisoners with disabilities – Obligation of the State:
Held: 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 – 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,
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 937

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

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. [Para 34]

Constitution of India – Arts. 14 and 21 – Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016 – United Nations Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 – Prisoners with
disabilities – The following directions are issued for immediate
and time-bound compliance:
Held: 1) All prison authorities shall promptly identify prisoners with
disabilities at the time of admission – 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 to be conducted by an expert committee;
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; 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
938 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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. [Para 35]

Case Law Cited
Shri Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka (1997) 2 SCC
642 – relied on.
Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission [2021] 12
SCR 311; Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India [2016] 4 SCR 638;
Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons [2016] 1 SCR 1090;
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [2014] 8 SCR 128 : (2008) 8 SCC
273 – referred to.
People’s Watch v. The Home Secretary, Home Department, Prison
Secretariat and Others (2023) 2 MLJ 478 : CDJ 2023 MHC
025 – approved.

List of Websites
http://www.oics.wa.gov.au/about-oics/independent-visitor-
service/; Inspector of Custodial Services Act, 2003 available
at: http://testweb.oics.wa.gov.au/wp-contempt/uploads/2013/11/
Insepctor-of-CustodialServices-Act-2003.pdf; Terms of
Reference available at: https://s3-eu-west-2-amazonaws.com/
ppo-prod-storage-1g9rkhijkjmgw/uploads/2021/12/PPO-2021-
Terms-of-Reference-with-cover.pdf; http://www/prisons.go.ke/
inspectionsComplainsMonitoringandevaluation.

List of Acts
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; Constitution of India,
1950; United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, 2006; United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules); Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Rules, 2017; Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 939

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

List of Keywords
Prisoners with disabilities; Article 14 of Constitution; Article 21
of Constitution; Prison Reforms; Becker Muscular Dystrophy;
Autism Spectrum Disorder; Identification of prisoners with
disabilities; Accessibility of prisoners with disabilities; Audit of
prisons; Healthcare for prisoners with disabilities; Accommodation
for prisoners with disabilities; Prison infrastructure and services;
Dietary needs.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9487 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in WP No. 22431 of 2021

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Respondents:
Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G., Sabarish Subramanian, Ms. Devyani
Gupta, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Ms. Saushriya Havelia, Ms. Tanvi
Anand, Danish Saifi, Ms. M Karthiga.
Petitioner-in-person.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

R. Mahadevan, J.

Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the final order dated 29.11.2022
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras1 in Writ Petition
No. 22431 of 2021, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
For the sake of clarity and specificity, the operative portion of the
impugned order is reproduced below:
“37. The very casual manner in which the officer replied
to our query, as to whether, he had read the judgment in

1 Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”
940 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Amesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another shocks us.
Such replies will reflect upon the entire Police force. We are
constrained to point out that the compensation awarded by
the State Human Rights Tribunal at Rs.1,00,000/- is wholly
insufficient and we enhance to Rs.5,00,000/-. We further
direct that the enhanced compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-
shall be borne by the State as we find that there has been
several acts of commissions and omissions by the Police
Department for which the 2nd respondent alone cannot
be held liable. The other directions of the State Human
Rights Commission relating to recovery of the penalty of
Rs.1,00,000/- from the 2nd respondent and the direction
to take disciplinary action against the second respondent
in WP No.22431 of 2021 would stand.
38. In fine WP No.22431 of 2021 will stand partly allowed
to the extent indicated above and WP. No.22527 of 2021
will stand dismissed. We also award cost of Rs.25,000/- to
the petitioner payable by the State.
39. Before parting with this ease, considering the material
that has been placed before us, we feel it is necessary
to issue directions to the State Government to effectively
implement the provisions of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016. There will be a direction to the
Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil
Nadu, Home Department to ensure that the District wise
Sensitization programmes are conducted for Police Officers
including Constables regarding the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities. Such programmes shall be so designed that
they throw enough light on the provisions of the enactment
and the intendment of the legislation. Guidelines should
also be issued to the Police Officers as to how they should
handle such physically disabled persons. Similar guidelines
are also to be issued to the Government Doctors who
come across such physically disabled persons who run
into conflict with law and brought before them for medical
examination. We remind the State that a statutory duty
has been cast upon it by the provisions of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, to ensure that such
persons live with dignity.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 941

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

…
42 We therefore direct the Director General of Police to take
steps to have a periodical inspection of the CCTV Cameras
in all Police Stations and ensure their functioning. In order
to achieve this, the Director General of Police is required
to make a District Level Officer in-charge of ensuring the
functioning of CCTV cameras in certain number of Police
Stations in the District and such Officers will be responsible
for maintenance of the Cameras and if there is a failure on
his part, he should be held accountable for such failure.
This effort if taken, will go a long way in curing the malady
of non-functioning CCTV Cameras. We hope that the above
directions would be complied with in their letter and spirit
in the interest of the Police Force itself. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
3. The appellant, who is an advocate, is 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 the
appellant, he also suffers from autism and mental illness.
4. It is alleged by the appellant that due to a civil dispute, a false complaint
was lodged against him and his aged mother by one Selvakumar,
a henchman of the appellant’s paternal uncle, Dhandapani, and the
same was registered as FIR in Crime No. 108 of 2020 for offences
under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 2. Based on the said FIR, the appellant was arrested on
29.02.2020 by Respondent No. 2, who allegedly harassed and tortured
him. He was thereafter, produced before the Judicial Magistrate,
Udumalaipet, who remanded him to judicial custody.
5. The appellant further alleged that during his incarceration at the
Central Prison, Coimbatore, Respondent No.3 failed to provide
proper food, medical treatment, and care as required under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 20163. The prison lacked
infrastructure and facilities necessary for prisoners with disabilities,

2 For short, “IPC”
3 For short, “the RPwD Act, 2016”
942 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and the officials were allegedly insensitive and ill-informed regarding
the rights of persons with disabilities. The appellant was released
on bail on 10.03.2020.
6. Subsequently, the appellant filed a complaint in SHRC No. 2745
of 2020 before the State Human Rights Commission4, seeking
compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- 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, 2016 for violations of his human, fundamental, and statutory
rights, and for action against the erring officials.
7. After hearing all parties, the SHRC, by order dated 27.08.2021,
disposed of the complaint filed by the appellant, with the following
recommendations:
“(i) The Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)
to the Complainant. Thiru L. Muruganantham residing
at No.1/16, Muthu Nagar, Kotapulipalayam Road,
Dharapuram, Tiruppur District, within one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Recommendation and the
Government of Tamil Nadu may recover Rs.1,00,000/-
from the 1st Respondent. The complaint against the 2nd
Respondent is dismissed.
(ii) This Commission also recommends to initiate disciplinary
action against the 1st Respondent as per the Rules.
(iii) This Commission further recommends that the
Government of Tamil Nadu to make all the prisons in
the State accessible for persons with disabilities as per
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and law
declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Rajiv Raturi vs. Union of India and others on
15.12.2017 which affirmed that “Right to life under Article
21 has been held broad enough to incorporate the right
to accessibility. All Government buildings providing any
services to the public are to be made fully accessible by
June, 2019 which has to be adhered to.”

4 For short, “the SHRC”
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 943

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the SHRC, the appellant filed
W.P.No.22431 of 2021 before the High Court, seeking a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to SHRC
Case No. 2745 of 2020 dated 27.08 2021, and to quash the same
insofar as it dismissed the complaint against Respondent No.3, failed
to consider the complaint against Respondent No.1, and partially
allowed the complaint against Respondent No.2. The appellant also
sought a direction to Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay compensation
of Rs.50,00,000/- for the human rights violations committed against
him, and for directions to Respondent No.1 to implement the RPwD
Act, 2016, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities, 20065 in relation to the Police and Prison
Departments in Tamil Nadu.
9. Respondent No.2, on the other hand, claiming that no human rights
violation was committed against the appellant, and that the SHRC
had erroneously held otherwise, filed W.P.No.22527 of 2021 seeking
to quash the SHRC’s order.
10. The High Court, by the common order impugned herein, partly allowed
the writ petition filed by the appellant and dismissed the writ petition
filed by Respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has
preferred the present appeal before this Court.
11. During the course of hearing, the appellant, appearing as a party-
in-person, made the following submissions:
11.1. That the appellant and his aged mother were falsely implicated
in a criminal case lodged at the behest of his paternal uncle
through one Selvakumar. Respondent No.2, acting in collusion
with the said uncle, arrested the appellant illegally and obtained
remand on the basis of false and misleading representations.
The ulterior motive behind this was to coerce the appellant
into transferring his valuable properties to his uncle. Though
a charge sheet was filed, it was ultimately quashed by the
High Court.
11.2. That the appellant suffers from Becker Muscular Dystrophy,
Autism Spectrum Disorder, and associated psychological
conditions. During incarceration, he was denied essential

5 For short, “the UNCRPD”
944 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

support such as physiotherapy, psychotherapy, protein-rich
nutrition (e.g., eggs, chicken, nuts), accessible sanitation
facilities, ramps, a low sensory environment for rest, and warm
water for bathing. This lack of accommodation caused further
deterioration of his physical and mental health, as evidenced by
undisputed medical records showing his disability progressed
from 70% in 2013 to 80% in 2020.
11.3. That the appellant repeatedly informed prison and medical
authorities of his health condition, yet no physiotherapy or
psychotherapy was provided. Protein-rich foods were denied,
and milk was supplied on only 7 out of 10 days. The prison
lacked accessible toilets and ramps, including in the dispensary.
Loud announcements and continuous lighting aggravated
his sensory distress. The hostile environment worsened
his Avoidant / Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID), a
condition recognized under DSM-5, leading to further mental
and physical deterioration.
11.4. That both the SHRC and the High Court concurrently found
that Respondent No.2, despite being aware of the appellant’s
disability, acted in a callous and inhumane manner with
ulterior motives. The High Court further observed that during
incarceration, the appellant was denied proper medical care,
food, and basic amenities, amounting to a violation of his
statutory rights. Such deprivation, according to the appellant,
constitutes a human rights violation under Section 2(d) of the
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the RPwD Act, 2016,
and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. However,
the SHRC awarded a meagre sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards
compensation, which was slightly enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-
by the High Court.
11.5. That compensation has been granted only for the human rights
violations committed by the police, whereas no compensation
has been granted for the progressive deterioration of the
appellant’s disability caused by inhumane prison conditions.
Such deterioration also constitutes a grave violation of his
fundamental and human rights.
11.6. That as a result of the violations suffered, the appellant now
experiences sleep deprivation, chronic pain, ulceration, and
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 945

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

severe psychological trauma requiring long-term medication
with significant side effects. His deteriorated health has also
diminished his eligibility for advanced gene therapy – costing
over Rs.16 crores – which should be considered while
assessing compensation.
11.7. That Prisons are ill-equipped to provide reasonable
accommodations to persons with disabilities. Despite statutory
mandates under Sections 39 and 47(1)(a) of the RPwD Act,
2016, no sensitization or awareness programmes have been
conducted for prison staff. RTI responses reveal that prison
authorities maintain no data on accessibility, accommodations,
or compliance. Further, there is a failure to publish disability-
related statistics, as mandated by Article 31 of the UNCRPD.
11.8. That the existing Prison Manual is non-compliant with the
RPwD Act, 2016, and fails to address the needs of persons with
varying disabilities. In Shri Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka6,
this Court noted that the outdated Prison Act, 1894, must be
thoroughly overhauled. The appellant submits that systemic
disregard for disability rights has led to irreversible harm to his
health and dignity, and endangers similarly placed prisoners.
11.9. The appellant further relies on the following judicial precedents:
(i) Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission7,
where this Court held that Section 3 of the RPwD
Act, 2016, is a statutory embodiment of constitutional
guarantees under Articles 14, 19, and 21, and that denial
of reasonable accommodation constitutes discrimination;
(ii) Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India 8, which emphasized
adopting a human rights-based approach toward persons
with disabilities;
(iii) Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons 9, wherein
this Court reiterated that the right to life under Article
21 includes the right to live with dignity, which applies
equally to prisoners.

6 (1997) 2 SCC 642
7 [2021] 12 SCR 311
8 [2016] 4 SCR 638
9 [2016] 1 SCR 1090
946 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

11.10. In light of the above facts, documentary evidence, and legal
principles, the appellant prays for compensation and systemic
reforms. The directions sought by the appellant are as follows:
(a) To direct the jail authorities to pay compensation for the
violation of the appellant’s rights during his incarceration;
(b) To ensure provision of physiotherapy, psychotherapy,
and all necessary life-saving medical treatments for
prisoners with disabilities;
(c) To mandate the supply of a proper and nutritious diet
to prisoners with disabilities, tailored to their individual
health needs;
(d) To direct an access audit of all prisons in Tamil Nadu,
in accordance with the Harmonized Guidelines and
Standards for Universal Accessibility in India – 2021;
(e) To mandate full accessibility of prisons in Tamil Nadu
as required under Section 45 read with Section 40 of
the RPwD Act, 2016, Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Rules, 2017, and the above Guidelines;
(f) To ensure provision of reasonable accommodations
under Section 3(5) read with Section 2(h) of the RPwD
Act, 2016, and the principles laid down in Vikash Kumar
(supra);
(g) To conduct sensitization and training programs for prison
authorities, including medical staff, regarding the rights
and needs of prisoners with disabilities, as mandated
under Sections 39 and 47(1)(a) of the RPwD Act, 2016;
(h) To initiate review and amendment of the Prison Manual
under Section 80 of the RPwD Act, 2016, in order to
address and safeguard the rights of prisoners with
disabilities;
(i) To ensure compliance with Article 31 of the UNCRPD by
maintaining and disseminating disaggregating statistical
data regarding accessibility and accommodations for
prisoners with disabilities on official websites, thereby
ensuring transparency and accountability.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 947

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

12. Denying the submissions made by the appellant, the learned counsel
for the respondents submitted as follows:
12.1. In connection with Crime No. 108/2020 registered at
Dharapuram Police Station for offences under Sections 294
(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC, the appellant was remanded by the
Judicial Magistrate on 29.02.2020 and admitted to Central
Prison, Coimbatore on the same day. He was released on
bail on 10.03.2020. Notably, from the date of admission until
his release, the appellant remained an inpatient in the Prison
Hospital throughout.
12.2. Subsequent to his release, the appellant lodged a complaint
before the SHRC which was registered as Case No.
2475/2020/C2. In this complaint, he alleged custodial torture
by Respondent No.2 during arrest and failure on the part of
Respondent No.3 (prison authorities) to provide basic facilities
and adequate medical treatment, taking into account his
physical disability.
12.3. Upon consideration of the matter, the SHRC awarded
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and directed disciplinary
action against the erring police officer (Respondent No.2).
However, it dismissed the complaint against Respondent
No.3. Aggrieved by the limited relief, the appellant filed Writ
Petition No. 22431/21 before the High Court seeking enhanced
compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- and action against the prison
authorities.
12.4. By its order dated 29.11.2022, the High Court partly allowed
the writ petition, observing that while the arrest and initial
treatment of the appellant could amount to a human rights
violation, there was no evidence of any violation by the jail
authorities. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:
“34…It is seen from the jail records that had been
produced, the petitioner was always in the jail
dispensary and certain special amenities were
provided to him as a physically disabled person.
Special diet which includes milk was supplied to
him. Mere non provision of certain amenities which
would amount to a statutory violation may not strictly
amount of Human Rights violation. While arrest
948 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and incarceration of the petitioner could be said to
be a Human Rights Violation, the non-provision of
certain amenities or treatment during a short period
of incarceration, in our opinion, will not amount to
a serious Human Rights violation.”
12.5. Nonetheless, the High Court enhanced the compensation
awarded by the SHRC from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/ ,
of which Rs.4,00,000/- was to be paid by the State and
Rs.1,00,000/- recovered from Respondent No.2. Additionally,
Rs.25,000/- was awarded as costs to the appellant, payable
by the State. In compliance, the Government issued G.O.(D)
No.270, Home (Police-HR) Department Dated 07.03.2023,
sanctioning Rs.5,25,000/- towards payment of compensation.
Thus, according to the respondents, the order of the High
court has already been complied with.
12.6. It is relevant to note here that the appellant was continuously
housed as an inpatient in the Prison Hospital from 29.02.2020
to 10.03.2020. This, according to the respondents, indicates
that the prison authorities took necessary steps to address
the appellant’s specific needs, including providing a cot with
a mattress, a special medical diet (milk and egg), psychiatric
counselling, and assistance from medical staff and co-
prisoners for daily routines.
12.7. As per the medical history recorded on 01.03.2020 by the
Prison Doctor, the appellant was a known case of Becker’s
Muscular dystrophy since the age of 27 and had a history
of psychiatric illness, for which he was on anti-depressants.
However, no supporting medical records were produced
by the appellant or his family members at the time of
admission. Based on clinical examination, the Medical Officer
recommended inpatient care, continued physiotherapy,
psychiatric counselling, and a special medical diet.
12.8. In accordance with Rules 196, 197, 198(iii), and 845 of
the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, every new prisoner is
examined by a Medical Officer and may be placed under
quarantine or admitted to the Prison Hospital, if required.
These procedures were duly followed in the appellant’s case.
Furthermore, Rule 405 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 949

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

Volume II provides that the medical diet of hospitalized
prisoners is under the full control of the Medical Officer.
Accordingly, the appellant was provided with appropriate
medical attention and dietary support during his period of
incarceration.
12.9. The respondents submitted that Central and Special Prisons
in Tamil Nadu are equipped with wheelchairs, disabled-friendly
toilets, and trained personnel to attend to the needs of elderly,
sick, and disabled inmates. All such facilities were available
to the appellant. The Medical Officer recorded all relevant
details in the prescribed proforma as per the guidelines issued
by the National Human Rights Commission.
12.10. Ultimately, it was submitted that the prison authorities
extended all possible medical care and basic amenities to
the appellant, and hence, the claim of human rights violations
during his incarceration is unfounded.
12.11. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the appeal is
devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
13. In reply, the appellant submitted that the prison records and the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents reveal inconsistencies and false
claims regarding the provision of treatment and accommodations.
For instance, while certain records assert that eggs were supplied,
the prison food logs indicate otherwise. Similarly, psychological
counselling was only recommended, but never actually administered,
contrary to the claims made by the respondents. Thus, according to
the appellant, the respondents failed to comply with the provisions
of the RPwD Act, 2016 and other applicable laws.
14. We have considered the submissions made by the appellant as party-
in-person and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
and carefully perused the materials available on record.
15. The two broad issues that arise for our consideration are as follows:
(A) Whether the order of the High Court enhancing compensation
to Rs.5,00,000/- for the alleged violations committed against the
appellant, while dismissing the complaint against Respondent
No.3, and partly allowing the complaint against Respondent
No.2, calls for interference by this Court; and
950 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(B) Whether adequate and appropriate facilities are being made
available to prisoners with disabilities during incarceration in
the prisons of Tamil Nadu, in compliance with the provisions
of the RPwD Act, 2016 and UNCPRD.

Order of the High Court
16. It is not in dispute that the appellant was falsely implicated in a
criminal case at the behest of his paternal uncle, resulting in his illegal
arrest and subsequent harassment by Respondent No.2. Though an
FIR was registered and a charge sheet was filed pursuant thereto,
the same was eventually quashed by the High Court. However, by
that time, the appellant had already undergone incarceration from
29.02.2020 to 10.03.2020.
17. According to the appellant, during his incarceration, the prison
authorities failed to provide him with appropriate food, medical care,
and other necessary support considering his physical disability,
which led to a deterioration in his health. Consequently, he lodged
a complaint before the SHRC seeking compensation and initiation of
actions against the erring officials for the alleged violations committed
against him. The respondents, however, contended that the appellant
was housed in the prison hospital throughout his custody, and was
provided with food, treatment, and care suited to his needs, and
therefore, no human rights violation could be attributable to the
prison authorities.
18. Upon a detailed examination of the records, the SHRC concluded
that the appellant’s arrest was in clear violation of the guidelines laid
down by this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar10. However, it
held that during the period of incarceration, the appellant had been
admitted to the prison hospital and was provided necessary medical
treatment. Consequently, the SHRC found no specific human rights
violation attributable to the prison authorities during the appellant’s
custody. Accordingly, in the complaint filed by the appellant, the SHRC
recommended the payment of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to
the appellant, to be paid by Respondent No.1 and recoverable from
Respondent No.2. It also recommended initiation of departmental
disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No.2.

10 (2014) 8 SCC 273
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 951

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

19. A similar view was taken by the High Court in the writ petition filed by the
appellant. However, pointing out that the compensation awarded by the
SHRC was inadequate given the nature and circumstances of the case,
the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,00,000/ , directing
that Rs.4,00,000/- be paid by the Government. The other directions
of the SHRC including the imposition of penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on
Respondent No.2 and the recommendation for disciplinary action
against him, were affirmed by the High Court. Additionally, the High
Court awarded costs of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant payable by the
State. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the respondents
have complied with the directions of the High Court and have paid
the entire amount of Rs.5,25,000/- to the appellant.
20. Both the SHRC and the High Court unequivocally held that the FIR,
arrest, and incarceration of the appellant were carried out at the
behest of his paternal uncle with the ulterior motive of usurping his
property. The arrest was illegal and did not comply with the safeguards
prescribed by this Court. Importantly, the authorities failed to consider
the appellant’s disability status. These findings are supported by
documentary evidence, and we find no reason to depart from them.
21. The next issue to be determined is whether the compensation
of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the SHRC, and later enhanced to
Rs.5,00,000/- by the High Court, merits further enhancement by
this Court.
21.1. 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.
21.2. The appellant specifically contended that he was not provided
with adequate protein-rich food, such as eggs, chicken and
nuts, on a daily basis. While persons with disabilities constitute
952 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

a particularly vulnerable class and are entitled to reasonable
accommodations under domestic law and international
conventions, the 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.
21.3. 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. 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.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. 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.
22. As already indicated, the deficiencies in prison facilities may not be
directly attributable to the respondent authorities in the present case.
Accordingly, they cannot be held liable for the same. The direction
issued by the High Court for initiation of departmental proceedings
against Respondent No.2, as well as the dismissal of the complaint
against Respondent No.3 (the prison authorities), appears to be
well-reasoned and based on a careful appreciation of the facts
and evidence on record. In contrast, no material was produced by
the appellant to establish wilful negligence or deliberate omission
on the part of the prison authorities to warrant a finding of human
rights violation. Therefore, we find no justification to disturb these
conclusions reached by the High Court.

Adequate and Appropriate facilities for prisoners with disabilities
23. Prisons are often regarded as the “tail-end” of the criminal justice
system – historically designed for rigid discipline, harsh conditions,
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 953

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

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.
24. In the present 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. In Rama Murthy (supra),
this Court referred to the Mulla Committee Report and emphasised
the dire conditions in Indian prisons, including inadequate hygiene,
insufficient medical care, and lack of accountability. The relevant
paragraphs of the said decision are usefully extracted below:
“35. The Mulla Committee has dealt with this aspect in
Chapter 6 and 7 of its Report, a perusal of which shows
the pathetic position in which most of the jails are placed
insofar as hygienic conditions are concerned. Most of them
also lack proper facilities for treatment of prisoners. The
recommendations of the Committee in this regard are to
be found in Chapter 29. We have nothing useful to add
except pointing out that society has an obligation towards
prisoners’ health for two reasons. First, the prisoners do
not enjoy the access to medical expertise that free citizens
have. Their incarceration places limitations on such access;
no physician of choice, no second opinions, and few if
any specialists. Secondly, because of the conditions of
their incarceration, inmates are exposed to more health
hazards than free citizens. Prisoners therefore, suffer from
a double handicap.
36. In `American Prison System’ (supra) there is a
discussion at pages 411-13 as to whether a prisoner
can seek any relief from the Court because of neglect
of medical treatment on the ground of violation of their
constitutional right. Policy makers may bear this also in
mind while deciding about the recommendations of the
Mulla Committee Report, which they would so do within
six months from today. Insubstantial food and inadequate
clothing.
954 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

37. There is not much to doubt that the rules contained
in concerned Jail Manual dealing with food and clothing
etc. to be given to prisoners are not fully complied with
always. All that can usefully he said on this aspect is the
persons who are entitled to inspect jails should do so after
giving shortest notice so that the reality becomes known
on inspection. The system of complaint box introduced in
Tihar Jail during some period needs to be adopted in other
jails also. The complaint received must be fairly inquired
and appropriate actions against the delinquent must be
taken. On top of all, prisoners must receive full assurance
that whoever would lodge a complaint would not suffer
any evil consequence for lodging the same.”
Despite clear directions, no comprehensive legal framework has yet
been developed to secure enforceable rights for disabled prisoners
facing systemic neglect.
25. 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.
26. Most prison facilities are structurally inaccessible to individuals with
mobility, sensory, or cognitive impairments. 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.
27. Such inaccessibility and denial of basic care are not mere
administrative lapses; they amount to violations of fundamental rights
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 955

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 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.
28. Persons with disabilities must be provided healthcare equivalent
to that available in the general community. This includes access
to physiotherapy, speech therapy, psychiatric care, and assistive
devices, such as wheelchairs, hearing aids, or crutches. Prison
authorities are under a duty to coordinate with public healthcare
systems to ensure uninterrupted care. Logistical or financial limitations
cannot be cited to justify a withdrawal of this obligation.
29. International legal standards reaffirm these responsibilities. The United
Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
(Nelson Mandela Rules) prescribe prompt, adequate healthcare and
specific attention to the needs of prisoners with disabilities. Under
Rule 2, the principle of non-discrimination requires prison systems
to proactively accommodate the unique vulnerabilities of such
individuals. Rule 5(2) mandates that reasonable accommodations
must be made so that persons with disabilities have full and effective
access to prison life on an equal basis with others.
30. 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.
31. Despite clear constitutional and statutory mandates, the lack of
disaggregated data on disability continues to hinder targeted policy
intervention. In response to a Parliamentary query in 2016,the
Government acknowledged that it does not maintain any data regarding
disabled prisoners. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) –
despite providing detailed information on caste, gender, and religion –
fails to record disability status. Its 2022 report, for instance, only
references 137 pending cases under the Mental Health Act, offering
no insight into the wider population of prisoners with disabilities.
956 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

32. This data gap has far-reaching implications throughout the criminal
justice process. The 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.
33. 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.
33.1. At this juncture, we also note with approval the judgment in
People’s Watch v. The Home Secretary, Home Department,
Prison Secretariat and others11 which incidentally also arose
from the Madras High Court. The said judgment elaborates
on the urgent need for prison reforms and outlines concrete
modalities for improving the quality of life of inmates. The
following paragraphs from the judgment are extracted
hereunder for reference. The directives issued therein are
hereby re-emphasized, as their effective implementation would
significantly advance the objective of comprehensive prison
reforms, aligned with the constitutional vision of a welfare
state that is attentive to the principles of inclusivity, equality,
and non-discrimination.
“15. The Model Prison Manual, 2016 came into
existence, after multiple judicial interventions. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly recommended
an overhaul of prison administration by suggesting
reforms in treatment of prisoners and management
of prisons. The dehumanized existence of prisoners
was reprimanded by Justice Krishna Iyer in Sunil
Batra v. Delhi Administration [1980 AIR 1579] and
he called for an overhaul of Prison Manuals in

11 (2023) 2 MLJ 478 : CDJ 2023 MHC 025
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 957

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

compliance with constitutional ideals and human
rights. He further emphasised on the need for an
independent oversight mechanism for operationalizing
prisoners’ rights and safeguards. Subsequently,
after the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to
examine the framing of new All India Jail Manual in
Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka, [(1997) 2 SCC
642], the government constituted a committee to
draft a model prison manual in accordance with the
rights jurisprudence and constitutional ideals. The
Committee was entrusted with the responsibility to
compare the state prison manuals, identify the gaps in
provisions related to administration and management
of prisons and recommend best practices. It examined
the provisions relating to internal management of
prisons and treatment of prisoners and devised a
framework to ensure that the prisoners are treated
in accordance with the recommendations made in
the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, All
India Committee on Jail Reforms (1980-1983) and
international instruments. Thus, the Model Prison
Manual came into being in the year 2003 after
national-level deliberations and development of a
consensus. However, only after the nudge from the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inhuman Conditions in
1382 Prisons, In re, [(2017) 10 SCC 658], the Ministry
of Home Affairs approved the Manual after 12 years in
2016. The Model Prison Manual and the system that
it envisages, has to be understood as an outcome of
the repeated clarion calls and demands to safeguard
prisoners’ rights and prison reforms.
16. The Model Prison Manual, 2016 provides for a
system of board of visitors. 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, which
directly interacts with the prisoners, is the driver of
such transformation by acting as a connecting thread
958 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

between the authorities and prisoners. They are
entrusted with the duty to enquire into the prisoners’
grievances, develop suggestions for its redressal and
forward the suggestions to the concerned authorities.
We may refer to the following observation of the All
India Committee for Jail Reforms (Mulla Committee),
while highlighting the importance of Board of Visitors:
“For long, the system of Board of Visitors in prison
administration has been in place. In a way, the
system indicates corrections being a concern of one
in all; and correctional institutions do not have to be
insular. These need to have a measure of interaction
with other sectors of criminal justice system and a
substantive linkage with community. The modality
of Board of Visitors subserves these and similar
purposes. Should the Board function effectively, it will
greatly help jail inmates in redressing their grievances
and in putting them on the path of reformation and
rehabilitation.”
17.(i) There is a catena of decisions dealing with
prisoners’ rights. We may now refer exclusively to the
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation
to the visitation system to understand the nature of
responsibility of the prison visitors. In Sunil Batra v.
Delhi Administration [AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1579],
it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows:
“59. The Prisons Act and Rules need revision if a
constitutionally and culturally congruous code is
to be fashioned. The model jail manual, we are
unhappy to say and concur in this view with the
learned Solicitor General, 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. We
accept, for the nonce, the suggestion of the Solicitor
General that within the existing statutory framework
the requirements of constitutionalism may be read. He
heavily relies on the need for a judicial agency whose
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 959

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

presence, direct or by delegate, within the prison walls
will deal with grievances. For this purpose, he relies
on the Board of Visitors, their powers and duties, as
a functional substitute for a Prison Ombudsman. A
controllerate is the desideratum for in situ reception
and redressal of grievances.
…..
79. What we have stated and directed constitute the
mandatory part of the judgment and shall be complied
with by the State. But implicit in the discussion and
conclusions are certain directives for which we do
not fix any specific time-limit except to indicate the
urgency of their implementation. We may spell out
four such quasi-mandates.
1. The State shall take early steps to prepare in Hindi,
a prisoner’s handbook and circulate copies to bring
legal awareness home to the inmates. Periodical jail
bulletins stating how improvements and habilitative
programmes are brought into the prison may create
a fellowship which will ease tensions. A prisoners’
wallpaper, which will freely ventilate grievances will
also reduce stress. All these are implementary of
Section 61 of the Prisons Act.
2. The State shall take steps to keep up to the
Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners
recommended by the United Nations, especially those
relating to work and wages, treatment with dignity,
community contact and correctional strategies. In
this latter aspect, the observations we have made
of holistic development of personality shall be kept
in view.
3. The Prisons Act needs rehabilitation and the Prison
Manual total overhaul, even the Model Manual being
out of focus with healing goals. A correctional-cum-
orientation course is necessitous for the prison staff
inculcating the constitutional values, therapeutic
approaches and tension-free management.
960 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

4. The prisoners’ rights shall be protected by the
court by its writ jurisdiction plus contempt power.
To make this jurisdiction viable, free legal services
to the prisoner programmes shall be promoted by
professional organisations recognised by the court
such as for example. Free Legal Aid (Supreme Court)
Society. The District Bar shall, we recommend, keep
a cell for prisoner relief.”
(ii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Suri v. Delhi
Administration [1988 Supp SCC 160] emphasized
the need for diversity in the board of visitors. It
recommended that members from different cross-
sections of life be included in the visitors’ board
viz., social activists, women social workers, people
involved in news media, retired public servants from
judiciary and executive. The relevant passage of the
said decision is extracted below:
“8. The Visitors’ Board should consist of cross-
sections to society; people with good background,
social activists, people connected with the news
media, lady social workers, jurists, retired public
officers from the judiciary as also the executive. The
Sessions Judge should be given an acknowledged
position as a visitor and his visits should not be routine
ones. Full care should be taken by him to have a
real picture of the defects in the administration qua
to the resident prisoners and undertrials.”
(iii) In Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka [(1997)
2 SCC 642], the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that
to know the real picture of prisoners and prison
administration, the jail visits must be done after
giving the shortest notice. For better appreciation, the
relevant passage of the said decision is reproduced
below:
“33. What we would rather state is that if what is being
done to prisoners in the above regard is to enforce
prison discipline mentioned in various jail manuals,
there exists a strong need for a new All India Jail
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 961

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

Manual to serve as a model for the country, which
manual would take note of what has been said about
various punishments by this Court in its aforesaid
decisions. Not only this, the century-old Indian Prison
Act, 1894, needs a thorough look and is required to
be replaced by a new enactment which would take
care of the thinking of Independent India and of our
constitutional mores and mandate. The National
Human Rights Commission has also felt that need
for such exercise, mention about which has been
made in paras 4.18 and 4.21 of the aforesaid Report.
Conclusion
51. We have travelled a long path. Before we end
our journey, it would be useful to recapitulate the
directions we have given on the way to various
authorities. These are:
(1) To take appropriate decision on the recommendations
of the Law Commission of India made in its 78th
Report on the subject of “Congestion of undertrial
prisoners in jail” as contained in Chapter 9
(para 22).

(2) To apply mind to the suggestions of the Mulla
Committee as contained in Chapter 20 of Vol. I of its
Report relating to streamlining the remission system
and premature release (parole), and then to do the
needful
(para 25).

(3) To consider the question of entrusting the duty of
producing UTPs on remand dates to the prison staff
(para 29).

(4) To deliberate about enacting of new Prison Act to
replace the century-old Indian Prison Act, 1894 (para
33). We understand that the National Human Rights
Commission has prepared an outline of an all-India
962 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

statute, which may replace the old Act; and some
discussions at a national level conference also took
place in 1995. We are of the view that all the States
must try to amend their own enactments, if any, in
harmony with the all-India thinking in this regard.
(5) To examine the question of framing of a model
new All India Jail Manual as indicated in para 33.
(6) To reflect on the recommendations of the Mulla
Committee made in Chapter 29 on the subject of
giving proper medical facilities and maintaining
appropriate hygienic conditions and to take needed
steps
(paras 37 and 38).

(7) To ponder about the need of complaint box in
all the jails
(para 39).

(8) To think about introduction of liberalisation of
communication facilities
(para 42).

(9) To take needful steps for streamlining of jail visits
as indicated in para 44.
(10) To ruminate on the question of introduction of
open-air prisons at least in the District Headquarters
of the country
(para 50).”

(iv) In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., [(2015) 8 SCC 744],
the amicus curiae suggested the Hon’ble Supreme
Court to deal with the appointment of non-official
visitors to make surprise visits to prisons to check
human rights violations. It was raised to enable
proper implementation of the Protection of Human
Rights Act, 1993. After noting that there is no harm in
appointing non- official visitors, the Hon’ble Supreme
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 963

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

Court directed the state government to consider their
appointment with a caveat that the non-official visitors
should not interfere with the ongoing investigations.
The relevant paragraphs are quoted below for ready
reference:
“31. There are, apart from the above, few other
recommendations made by the Amicus like installation
of CCTV cameras in all police stations and prisons
in a phased manner, and appointment of non-official
visitors to prisons and police stations for making
random and surprise inspections. Initiation of human
proceedings under Sections 302/304 IPC in each
case where the enquiry establishes culpability in
custodial death and framing of uniform definition
of custodial death and mandatory deployment of at
least two women constables in each district are also
recommended by the Amicus.
…
35. That leaves us with the appointment of non-
official visitors to prisons and police stations for
making random and surprise inspection to check
violation of human rights. The Amicus points out that
there are provisions in the Prison Manual providing
for appointment of non-official visitors to prisons in
the State. These appointments are made on the
recommendations of the Magistrate of the District
in which the prison is situated. He urged that the
provisions being salutary ought to be invoked by
the Governments concerned and non-official visitors
to prisons in police stations nominated including
independent persons like journalist. There is, in our
opinion, no real harm or danger in appointment of
non-official visitors to prisons and police stations
provided the visitors who are so appointed do not
interfere with the ongoing investigations, if any. All
that we need say is that the State Governments may
take appropriate action in this regard keeping in view
the provisions of the Prison Manuals and the Police
Acts and the Rules applicable to each State. …..
964 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

38. To sum up ......
38.7. The State Governments shall consider
appointment of non-official visitors to prisons and
police stations in terms of the relevant provisions of
the Act wherever they exist in the Jail Manuals or
the relevant Rules and Regulations.”
(v) In Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re,
[(2017) 10 SCC 658], the Hon’ble Supreme Court
opined that participation of members of the society
as non-official visitors in the Board of Visitors was
of ‘considerable importance’ and directed the state
governments to constitute an appropriate board of
visitors in terms of Chapter XXIV of the Model Prison
Manual, 2016 by 30.11.2017. The relevant passage
can be usefully extracted below:
“58. We are of the view that on the facts and in the
circumstances before us, the suggestions put forward
by the learned Amicus and the learned counsel
appearing for the National Forum deserve acceptance
and, therefore, we issue the following directions:
58.1. The Secretary General of this Court will transmit
a copy of this decision to the Registrar General of
every High Court within one week with a request to
the Registrar General to place it before the Chief
Justice of the High Court. We request the Chief
Justice of the High Court to register a suo motu public
interest petition with a view to identifying the next
of kin of the prisoners who have admittedly died an
unnatural death as revealed by the NCRB during the
period between 2012 and 2015 and even thereafter,
and award suitable compensation, unless adequate
compensation has already been awarded.
58.2. The Union of India through the Ministry of Home
Affairs will ensure circulation within one month and
in any event by 31st October, 2017 of (i) the Model
Prison Manual, (ii) the monograph prepared by the
NHRC entitled “Suicide in Prison - prevention strategy
and implication from human rights and legal points
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 965

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

of view”, (iii) the communications sent by the NHRC
referred to above, (iv) the compendium of advisories
issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the State
Governments, (v) the Nelson Mandela Rules and (vi)
the Guidelines on Investigating Deaths in Custody
issued by the International Committee of the Red
Cross to the Director General or Inspector General
of Police (as the case may be) in charge of prisons
in every State and Union Territory. All efforts should
be made, as suggested by the NHRC and others,
to reduce and possibly eliminate unnatural deaths in
prisons and to document each and every death in
prisons – both natural and unnatural.
58.3. The Union of India through the Ministry of Home
Affairs will direct the NCRB to explain and clarify the
distinction between unnatural and natural deaths in
prisons as indicated on the website of the NCRB
and in its Annual Reports and also explain the sub-
categorization ‘others’ within the category of unnatural
deaths. The NCRB should also be required to sub-
categorize natural deaths. The sub-categorization
and clarification should be complied with by 31st
October, 2017.
58.4. The State Governments should, in conjunction
with the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA), the
National and State Police Academy and the Bureau
of Police Research and Development conduct
training and sensitization programmes for senior
police officials of all prisons on their functions, duties
and responsibilities as also the rights and duties of
prisoners. A copy of this order be sent by the Registry
of this Court to the Member-Secretary of each SLSA
to follow-up and ensure compliance.
58.5. The necessity of having counselors and support
persons in prisons cannot be over-emphasized.
Their services can be utilized to counsel and advice
prisoners who might be facing some crisis situation
or might have some violent or suicidal tendencies.
The State Governments are directed to appoint
966 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

counselors and support persons for counselling
prisoners, particularly first-time offenders. In this
regard, the services of recognized NGOs can be
taken and encouraged.
58.6. While visits to prison by the family of a prisoner
should be encouraged, it would be worthwhile to
consider extending the time or frequency of meetings
and also explore the possibility of using phones and
video conferencing for communications not only
between a prisoner and family members of that
prisoner, but also between a prisoner and the lawyer,
whether appointed through the State Legal Services
Authority or otherwise.
58.7. The State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs)
should urgently conduct a study on the lines conducted
by the Bihar State Legal Services Authority in Bihar
and the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in
Rajasthan in respect of the overall conditions in
prisons in the State and the facilities available. The
study should also include a performance audit of the
prisons, as has been done by the CAG. The SLSAs
should also assess the effect and impact of various
schemes framed by NALSA relating to prisoners.
We request the Chief Justice of every High Court,
in the capacity of Patron- in-Chief of the State Legal
Services Authority, to take up this initiative and, if
necessary, set up a Committee headed preferably by
the Executive Chairperson of the State Legal Services
Authority to implement the directions given above.
58.8. Providing medical assistance and facilities to
inmates in prisons needs no reaffirmation. The right
to health is undoubtedly a human right and all State
Governments should concentrate on making this a
reality for all, including prisoners. The experiences in
Karnataka, West Bengal and Delhi to the effect that
medical facilities in prisons do not meet minimum
standards of care is an indication that the human
right to health is not given adequate importance in
prisons and that may also be one of the causes of
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 967

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

unnatural deaths in prisons. The State Governments
are directed to study the availability of medical
assistance to prisoners and take remedial steps
wherever necessary.
58.9. The constitution of a Board of Visitors which
includes non- official visitors is of considerable
importance so that eminent members of society
can participate in initiating reforms in prisons and in
the rehabilitation of prisoners. Merely changing the
nomenclature of prisons to ‘Correction Homes’ will
not resolve the problem. Some proactive steps are
required to be taken by eminent members of society
who should be included in the Board of Visitors.
The State Governments are directed to constitute
an appropriate Board of Visitors in terms of Chapter
XXIX of the Model Prison Manual indicating their
duties and responsibilities. This exercise should be
completed by 30th November, 2017.
58.10. The suggestion given by the learned Amicus
of encouraging the establishment of ‘open jails’ or
‘open prisons’ is certainly worth considering. It was
brought to our notice that the experiment in Shimla
(Himachal Pradesh) and the semi- open prison
in Delhi are extremely successful and need to be
carefully studied. Perhaps there might be equally
successful experiments carried out in other States
as well and, if so, they require to be documented,
studied and emulated.
58.11. The Ministry of Women & Child Development
of the Government of India which is concerned with
the implementation of Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is directed to discuss
with the concerned officers of the State Governments
and formulate procedures for tabulating the number of
children (if any) who suffer an unnatural death in child
care institutions where they are kept in custody either
because they are in conflict with law or because they
need care and protection. Necessary steps should be
taken in this regard by 31st December, 2017.
968 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

59. We expect the above directions to be faithfully
implemented by the Union of India and State
Governments. In the event of any difficulty in the
implementation of the above directions, the Bench
hearing the suo motu public interest litigation in the
High Court in term of our first direction is at liberty to
consider those difficulties and pass necessary orders
and directions.”
18. In the light of the aforesaid legal proposition,
we now consider the provisions concerning board
of visitors under the Model Prison Manual, 2016,
which show a marked difference from the Tamil Nadu
Prison Rules, 1983. The board of visitors is presently
required to monitor the correctional work in prisons,
training and effectiveness of infrastructure in prisons;
and give suggestions to improve the correctional work
(para 29.02). Significantly, the role of the Board is not
restricted to being a messenger carrying grievances
from the prisoners to the authorities. It is now required
to work on redressing their grievances in consultation
with the prison authorities (para 29.02(c)). The duties
of the visitors under the Manual (para 29.22) are
reproduced below for the sake of specificity:
“a. Examine cooked food;
b. Inspect the barracks, wards, work-sheds and other
buildings of the prison generally;
c. Ascertain whether considerations of health,
cleanliness and security are attended to, whether
proper management and discipline is maintained in
every respect and whether any prisoner is illegally
detained, or is detained for undue length of time
while awaiting trial;
d. Examine prison registers and records, except
secret records and records pertaining to accounts;
e. Hear and attend to all representation and petitions
made by or on behalf of the prisoners;
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 969

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

f. Direct, if deemed advisable, that any such
representation or petition be forwarded to the
Government; and
g. Suggest new avenues for improvement in
correctional work”
Further, the duties and powers of visitors under the
Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 are general i.e., to
visit all parts to satisfy oneself that the rules are
duly complied with, give patient hearing to prisoners’
complaints, inspect the maintenance of punishment
books, and ensure that food is of good quality. There
is a specific provision dealing with visitors’ duty to
attend to the quality and quantity of diet, medical
facilities, sanitation, literacy programme and library
facilities available to the prisoners (para 29.13). Thus,
the duties of visitors under the Manual have become
more specific, including the duty to ascertain if any
prisoner has been detained illegally. The manual also
provides for sensitization and training of non-officials
after their appointment (para 29.05). The remarks by
visitors during the course of inspection are forwarded
to the Inspector General who shall then take steps
by either passing an order or forwarding the same to
the government. The Manual also recognizes the right
of the prisoners to converse secretly with the visitor,
but within the sight of the prison officer (para 29.11).
The details of what transpired during the conversation
is communicated to the Chairman of the Board (i.e.,
District Judge), who shall take up the matter with
the prison superintendent, if found necessary. The
manual has also brought changes to the non-official
membership of the Board. It is mandatory to have
three Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) (of
which one has to be a woman), a nominee of the
State Human Rights Commission and two social
workers of the district/sub-division (of which one has
to be a woman) as non-official members. This is a
marked difference from the present Prison rules,
970 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

which does not give a mandatory specification rather
only specifies the people as a matter of preference.
Thus, it is lucid that the State government has still
not incorporated changes to its Prison Rules in
accordance with the 2016 Model Prison Manual and
it has also not implemented the visitation system
under the 1983 Rules diligently.
19. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to United
Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment
of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandala Rules). The
mechanism for informing the prisoners of their
rights, standards of treatment in prisons and for
them to make complaints and requests regarding
their treatment in prisons, has been integral to the
international standards for treatment of prisoners
since 1955. It forms a part of the Standard Minimum
Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted by the
First United Nations Congress on the Prevention
of Crime and the Treatment of Prisoners. Rules
35-36 deal with information to and complaints by
prisoners. Rule 55 specifically deals with inspections
to ensure compliance with laws and regulations. In
2011, attempts to review and revise these rules were
made and an open-ended inter-governmental expert
group was established by the General Assembly.
With respect to information and complaints by
prisoners, the revision sought to strengthen the
mechanism by ensuring prompt dealing of complaints
and requests. The inspection mechanism was
revised by introducing a two-fold system of internal
inspection by prison administration and external
inspection by an independent body of persons. The
revision also enabled the inspectors to perform
their tasks effectively, by granting them access to
prison records, power to make unannounced visits
and conduct confidential interviews. The revised
rules were ultimately adopted by the UN General
Assembly as the “United Nations Standard Minimum
Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners” vide resolution
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 971

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

A/RES/70/175. The General Assembly also approved
the rules to be known as “the Nelson Mandela Rules”
in accordance with the recommendation of the expert
group in his honour.
20. As per Rule 54 of the Nelson Mandela Rules,
upon admission, every prisoner shall be promptly
provided with written information about the prison
law and regulations, his or her rights, including
authorized methods of seeking information, access
to legal advice, etc., his or her obligations including
applicable disciplinary sanctions, and all other matters
necessary to enable him / her to adapt himself or
herself to the life of the prison. Rule 55 provides
that the information referred to in Rule 54 shall be
available in the most commonly used languages
and shall be provided with interpretation assistance
for those who do not understand the language.
Rule 56 provides for an opportunity of making
requests or complaints by the prisoner or his / her
legal advisor, to the prison director or prison staff,
regarding medical treatment to the central prison
administration and to the judicial or other competent
authorities, etc. According to Rule 57, every request
or complaint shall be promptly dealt with and replied
to without delay and if there is any undue delay,
the complainant shall be entitled to bring it before a
judicial or other authority. A prisoner or his / her legal
advisor must not be exposed to any risk of retaliation,
intimidation or other negative consequences as a
result of having submitted a request or complaint.
Allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners
shall be dealt with immediately and shall result in a
prompt and impartial investigation conducted by an
independent national authority. Under Rule 83, there
shall be a two-fold system for regular inspections of
prisons and penal services viz., internal inspections
and external inspections. Internal inspections are
conducted by the central prison administration and
972 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

external inspections are conducted by an independent
body. In both cases, the objective is to ensure that
prisons are managed in accordance with existing
laws, regulations, policies and procedures, with a
view to bringing about the objectives of penal and
corrections services, and that the rights of prisoners
are protected. As per Rule 84, Inspectors shall have
the authority, to access all information on the numbers
of prisoners and places and locations of detention,
as well as all information relevant to the treatment
of prisoners, including their records and conditions
of detention; to freely choose which prisons to visit,
including by making unannounced visits at their own
initiative, and which prisoners to interview; to conduct
private and fully confidential interviews with prisoners
and prison staff in the course of their visits; to make
recommendations to the prison administration and
other competent authorities. External inspection
teams shall be composed of qualified and experienced
inspectors appointed by a competent authority
and shall encompass health-care professionals.
Due regard shall be given to balanced gender
representation. Rule 85 states that every inspection
shall be followed by a written report to be submitted
to the competent authority. The rule also highlights
that endeavour must be made to make external
inspections reports publicly available, excluding any
personal data on prisoners unless they have given
their explicit consent. The prison administration or
other competent authorities, as appropriate, shall
indicate, within a reasonable time, whether they will
implement the recommendations resulting from the
external inspection.
21. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the second
report of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
(CHRI), published in 2019 on the functioning of
the board of visitors and the appointment of non-
official visitors. Analysing the compliance in all the
States (except Jammu and Kashmir) as against the
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 973

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

respective state rules, the report provides for certain
recommendations for effective implementation of
board of visitors across the states. It recommends that
the board of visitors must be constituted within seven
days of the appointment of non-official visitors, with the
District Magistrate as the Chairperson. It recommends
for an assured minimum tenure of visitors for a
period of one year to ensure continuity and prevent
the erosion of institutional memory. It recommends
bi-monthly joint inspections and quarterly meetings at
the prison premises during which the Board shall also
consider the visitors’ book and the action taken by the
Superintendent on the remarks made in the visitors’
book and called for corresponding amendments to the
rules. The report also recommends that non-official
visitors must have genuine interest in the welfare
of prisons and of the prisoners with experience and
knowledge in law, criminology, psychiatry, healthcare
etc., with observation and listening skills. Further,
it emphasises on gender balance and equitable
representation of both men and women in the
board. It also makes several recommendations as
to reporting mechanism to ensure time-bound action
by the state, which includes the right of the visitors
to communicate with any authority they believe, is
appropriate without having to go through the jail
administration at the first instance. The report further
recommends for voluntary disclosure of the names
of the non-official visitors and their rosters inside the
prison premises to enable the prisoners to know the
same and bats for the uploading of minutes of the
board meetings on the official website of the state
prison department. Besides that, it recommends for
an yearly state level meeting of official and non-official
visitors of all prisons, chaired by the State Human
Rights Commission with the participation of officials
of the prisons and correctional services department
to deliberate on improvements based on the visiting
notes of the Board of Visitors.
974 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

22. It is also relevant to refer to the visitorial systems
prevailing in other countries. Mechanism for visiting
prisons to ensure compliance with laws, handle
complaints from prisons to check human rights
violations, and recommending systemic and policy
level changes to prison administration is in place in
different jurisdictions. We may refer to three select
frameworks viz., (i)Independent Visitor Service
in Western Australia, (ii)Prison Ombudsman in
United Kingdom and (iii)Directorate of Inspections/
Complaints in Kenya. The first two are external
and independent accountability mechanisms, while
the third one is an internal mechanism to deal with
complaints and recommend changes.
23.(i) In Western Australia12, there is an Independent
Visitor Service (IVS) as an integral part of the state’s
accountability mechanisms. Independent Prison
Visitors are appointed by the Minister under the
Inspector of Custodial Services Act, 2003 to ensure
the prisons operate in a just and humane manner.
They are required to visit the allotted prison every
three months and make a report following the visit to
the Inspector of the Custodial Services recording the
details of the visit and any complaints made by the
prison inmates. The Inspector is then bound to review
such reports to identify issues with the prison systems;
report to the Ministry; and take appropriate actions
to improve the quality of prisons. The independent
visitors thus play an important role in safeguarding
the rights and wellbeing of prisoners; voicing out the
concerns of prisoners to the authorities; aiding the
prison reforms by documenting the state of prison
management and grievances of the prisoners.
(ii) In the United Kingdom13, there is an independent
office of the Prison and Probation Ombudsman,

12 http://www.oics.wa.gov.au/about-oics/independent-visitor-service/; Inspector of Custodial Services Act,
2003 available at: http://testweb.oics.wa.gov.au/wp-contempt/uploads/2013/11/Insepctor-of-Custodial-
Services-Act-2003.pdf
13 Terms of Reference available at: https://s3-eu-west-2-amazonaws.com/ppo-prod-storage-1g9rkhijkjmgw/
uploads/2021/12/PPO-2021-Terms-of-Reference-with-cover.pdf
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 975

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

sponsored by the Ministry of Justice. Though
sponsored by the Ministry, the ombudsman is
independent from government services and carries
out investigations on complaints filed by the prisoners,
custodial deaths and deaths (except homicide), within
14 days of release. Through such investigations,
the ombudsman examines whether any operational
or policy changes are required in the management
of prisons. The terms of reference between the
Ombudsman and the Secretary of State concerning
operation of Ombudsman, ensures confidentiality
of communication by the prisoner-complainant and
fixes a time limit for considering and investigating
complaints. Every investigation results in a written
report, which can recommend disciplinary action
against any staff named in the complaints. The
ombudsman is also required to prepare and publish
an annual report and the same is laid before the
Parliament for legislative scrutiny.
(iii) Kenya14 has a separate directorate called the
Directorate of Inspections/Complaints under the
Kenya Prisons Service. It inspects and audits penal
institutions to check implementation and compliance
with the Prisons Act, rules and regulations for penal
institutions; sensitizes the prison staff. It is also
conferred with the responsibility to handle complaints
by establishing complaint handling offices in prisons
and training the officers in complaint handling. It
also recommends improvements, changes and
introduction of new correctional programmes.
24. During the course of argument, the petitioner has
brought to the notice of this court the existence of the
Academy of Prisons and Correctional Administration
(APCA) situated at Vellore, the objective of which is
to regularly train prison and correctional officers in
order to achieve the goals of reformation, rehabilitation

14 http://www/prisons.go.ke/inspectionsComplainsMonitoringandevaluation
976 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and reintegration of prisoners into the society. It offers
different types of courses to the officials involved
in prison administration and correctional services
including:
(i) Basic Courses for different durations for prison
officers, probation officers, psychologists and welfare
officers
(ii) In-service courses for prison officers
(iii) Refresher course for serving prison officers for
mutual learning and updating oneself with the latest
developments in the subject
(iv) Computer course to appraise the officers
regarding ICT applications
(v) Special courses in collaboration with renowned
national and international institutions and organizations.
These courses are organized for capacity building of
the stakeholders and officials involved to effectively
implement the correctional works, rehabilitation of
prisoners and their reintegration into the society post
incarceration.
25. Thus, the overall appreciation of the legal
framework prevailing in the state, central and
international levels would necessitate us to observe
that prison administration and its reforms must be
carried out by keeping the objective of the prison
system in the first place i.e., reformation of inmates,
their rehabilitation and successful reintegration into
the society at the end of their incarceration. The prison
environment and culture among the inmates instilled
by such an environment are significant factors in
determining the success of incarceration. Any reform
in prison management in order to achieve the said
purpose must start with the department of prisons
and correctional services. Improving the culture
among inmates and the environment by certain
administrative reforms will bring about a change in
the behaviour of the inmates ultimately leading to
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 977

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

an effective incarceration system with due regard
for prisoner’s rights.
26. Coming to the present case, it is seen from the
documents filed in the form of typed set of papers
as well as the replies given by various authorities
under the RTI Act that for most of the applications,
the Public Information Officer concerned has either
refused to divulge the information or stated that no
such record exists to be divulged. There are some
replies where it was stated that the information sought
for is confidential in nature and therefore, it cannot
be shared. In few replies, available records have
in fact been given to the applicant. As regards the
applications submitted to the Judiciary, information
on dates of visits of the Judges has been furnished.
In several replies, the information was refused stating
minutes of the meeting could not be furnished in view
of the order passed by this Court.
27. It is also seen that in case of applications filed
before the District Collectorates across the State,
the information sought for was not furnished at all
times on the grounds of diversion of resources. For
some applications, it was replied that no record is
maintained relating to the requests of prisoners. In
another reply, it is stated that the Chief Education
Officers never visited and there are no records to
be furnished. However, from the replies filed along
with the typed set of papers, it could be seen that
Fire and Rescue Services Department has furnished
the copies of the records maintained by them and
they have also answered the queries relating to fire
service related provisions, periodical checking of fire
extinguishers and other provisions carried out in the
prisons. In the case of Animal Husbandry Department,
the applications submitted were replied by stating that
there was no visit by any authority and therefore, no
information could be furnished. Similar was the reply
given by the office of the Chief Inspector of Factories
978 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to the petitioner. Thus, it can be inferred that no
periodical visits had taken place and no remarks
were made in the visitors’ book; and that, there is no
clear-cut picture about the prison administration and
the facilities available to the prisoners in the prisons
of the state of Tamil Nadu.
28. As already observed, the state government has
not incorporated changes to the Tamil Nadu Prison
Rules, 1983 in accordance with the Model Prison
Manual, 2016 and has not effectively implemented the
provisions relating to visitation system in the Rules.
It is noted earlier that the non-official visitors are
appointed by the District Collector of the concerned
District by following the procedures as contemplated
under the Prison Rules. Such appointment is essential
to continuously monitor the physical conditions
prevailing in the prison, compliance with basic and
fundamental rights of the prisoners, etc. Therefore, it
is necessary for the respondents to not only ensure
the appointment of the non-official visitors and that,
the duties and responsibilities are discharged by them,
but also ensure that there is no delay in appointing a
non-official visitor, after expiration of his or her tenure.
It is evident from the materials placed before us, that
the tenure of the non-official visitors in many districts
expired and the appointment is not forthcoming even
for several months. When such being so, we are of
the opinion that the visitors who interact with prisoners
and observe their conditions in close proximity, are
indispensable for the enforcement of fundamental
rights of prisoners and therefore, non-official visitors
will have to be appointed with immediate effect. That
apart, the prison administration needs to be reformed
for creating a better environment and prison culture
to ensure the prisoners enjoy their right to dignified
life under Article 21.
29. Therefore, we deem it fit and appropriate to issue
the following directions to the respondent authorities:
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 979

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

(i) To constitute a committee to ensure periodic
appointment of non-official visitors to all the prisons/
jails within the State promptly upon expiry of the
tenure of such non-official visitor.
(ii) To constitute board of visitors in all prisons who
could periodically review and advise the prison
authorities on various aspects of facilities training,
correctional work etc.
(iii) The minutes of the meeting of the board of visitors
along with the suggestions to the government shall
be uploaded on the website, district/prison wise.
(iv) To amend the Prison Act, 1894 and the Tamil Nadu
Prison Rules, 1983 in accordance with the Model
Prison Manual, 2016 and the United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (‘the
Nelson Mandela Rules’).
(v) To take appropriate measures to reduce
overcrowding of prisoners in the prisons, if not
taken earlier.
(vi) To prepare a ‘Prisoners’ Rights Handbook’ with
information on their rights, applicable laws and
regulations, mechanism for raising grievances/
complaints with the board of visitors and other
concerned authorities, expected behaviour from
prisoners and disciplinary action for violations and to
provide each prisoner with a copy of the same upon
admission to the prisons. The same shall also be
made available online on the website of the prison
department.
(vii) The Office of the Inspector General of Prisons
shall prepare an annual report with the remarks and
suggestions of the visitors and board across the
state, and the corresponding action taken by the
prison department. The annual report prepared by
the Inspector General containing the remarks and
action taken must be published in the website.
980 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(viii) To make all the facilities viz., medical equipment,
drinking water, hygienic food available to the
prisoners, at all times.
(ix) Regular training and refresher courses shall be
conducted in collaboration with the Academy of Prisons
and Correctional Administration for officials and prison
staff, who directly interact with the inmates in order to
create a sensitive and dignified prison environment.
(x) To provide effective grievance redressal system
with the provisions of complaint box and CCTV
cameras and alert system in the barracks of jails.
(xi) To ensure the effective functioning of visitorial
system in reforming the prisons, the state government
shall organize a yearly conference under the aegis
of the State Human Rights Commission with the
official and non-official visitors of the board of visitors
across the state, officials concerned with prison
administration and correctional services to consider
the status of prison administration, deliberate on
the report of the board of visitors and recommend
changes in the prison administration.”
34. 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. 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.

DIRECTIVES:
35. In light of the foregoing findings and in furtherance of Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India, the RPwD Act, 2016, and India’s
international obligations under the UNCRPD, the following directions
are issued for immediate and time-bound compliance:
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 981

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

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, 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.
982 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
11.1) A specific section must be incorporated to prohibit
discrimination against prisoners with disabilities and
promote equal treatment and reasonable accommodation.
11.2) The revised Manual shall be prominently displayed in
every prison establishment.
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.
14.1) This is to ensure compliance with Article 31 of the
UNCRPD and the RPwD Act, 2016.
14.2) The data shall be made available in the public domain,
subject to privacy safeguards.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 983

L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

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.
35.1. We make it clear that these 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.
36. With the above directions, this appeal stands disposed of. No costs.
Connected Miscellaneous Application(s), if any shall stand closed.

Result of the case: Directions issued.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan