Rights Of Persons With Disabilities : Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Strict Implementation Of RPwD Act In Prisons

The Supreme Court recently issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking strict implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in prisons across the country.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order. The matter is next listed for consideration on 8 April 2025.

Briefly put, the petitioner, a political activist in Kerala, seeks a direction to respondent-authorities to ensure that prisoners with disabilities are granted adequate facilities, resources etc. while in prisons. The respondent-authorities include Union of India, Department of Empowerment of PwD, Ministry of Social Justice and various states/UTs.

It is claimed that there is a lack of a legal framework to provide persons with disability (PwD) reasonable accommodation in prisons which constitutes violation of the fundamental rights under the Constitution - particularly of undertrials.

"There are no provisions for PwD prisoners that provide for their specific needs. They are still housed in the same facilities as non-PwD inmates, thereby receiving similar treatment regardless of their specialized requirements. This vitiates the purpose of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act)."

The petitioner urges that PwD prisoners often depend on others for assistance with daily tasks, and the lack of adequate facilities in prisons places them at a significant disadvantage compared to non-disabled inmates.

"paraplegic inmates require housing accommodations, toilets, and accessibility measures specifically tailored to their needs. Therefore, inmates with mobility issues encounter difficulties in using standard toilets and showers, and their wheelchairs may often not fit within standard Indian prison cells, especially “Anda” (egg-shaped) cells. These prisoners may require specific medical care related to their disabilities, such as physiotherapy and physical assessments, which are often difficult to provide in a prison setting."

It is contended that even though prison administration and related matters fall within the domain of State List (under 7th Schedule), the prison manuals of most states lack mandatory provisions for ramps and other accessibility measures in prisons. States/UTs like Delhi, Goa and Haryana have some provisions in their prison manuals and rules to address specific needs of PwD prisoners, however, the same are inadequate.

"The prison conditions in themselves are inhumane and belittling for non-PwD prisoners, but the brunt of neglect falls more heavily on the PwD prisoners", the petition states.

It is further the petitioner's contention that overcrowded prisons in India, coupled with lack of proper differentiation and supervision, may contribute to increased violence, neglect, and inadequate medical care in case of PwD prisoners.

"In such an environment, PwD prisoners are particularly vulnerable, and the absence of tailored accommodations accelerates the dehumanization process. While the RPwD legislation exists to protect against discrimination, the practical reality is that individuals with disabilities in Indian prisons experience intensified forms of discrimination and alienation due to the closed and restricted nature of the environment."

In support of his contentions, the petitioner cites the cases of Delhi University Prof. GN Saibaba (sufferer of 90% physical disability; accused of terrorism) and Stan Swamy (priest and tribal rights activist; undertrial in the Bhima Koregaon case), claiming that while Prof Saibaba's demise was directly attributable to his deteriorating health - exacerbated by prolonged incarceration and inhumane conditions of detention - that of Stan Swamy occurred while he was in prison suffering from Parkinson's syndrome.

The petitioner further cites Accused 'x' vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) to point out that in the said case, the Supreme Court directed states to provide for a mentally challenged prisoner his rights as per the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. "However, to ensure the effective protection of disability rights, a piecemeal approach reliant solely on judicial intervention would render any constitutional protection cumbersome."

He also quotes a scholar to emphasize that the above situation imposes double punishment on PwD prisoners: one, of the punitive form imposed by law (for the crime committed), and second, due to the ableist nature of criminal justice institutions in the country (on account of being handicapped).

Referring to countries like the USA and UK, it is underlined that there are statutes in other progressive democracies that necessitate accessible, disability-friendly prisons and provide rights that protect PwD prisoners from inhumane conditions in prisons.

Notably, the petitioner also mentions that the exact number of PwD prisoners in the country is unknown. In this regard, he refers to Prison Statistics Data report issued by National Crime Records Bureau, but points out that the said report is silent on the precise number of PwD prisoners.

The petition has been drawn by Advocates Thulasi K Raj, Aparna Menon and Chinnu Maria Antony, settled by Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj and filed through Advocate-on-Record Mohammed Sadique TA.

Case Title: SATHYAN NARAVOOR v. UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 182/2025