New Delhi, Mar 19 (UNI) The Supreme Court has issued notice on a public interest litigation (PIL) demanding strict implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 in prisons across the country.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order recently, listing the matter for further consideration on April 8, 2025.
The petition, filed by a political activist from Kerala, sought a directive from the Union of India, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice, and various State/UT governments to ensure that prisoners with disabilities receive adequate facilities and accommodations while in custody.
The petitioner contended that Indian prisons lack a legal framework to provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities (PwDs), violating their fundamental rights under the Constitution, particularly the rights of undertrial prisoners. The plea stated, “There are no dedicated provisions ensuring accessible infrastructure or special assistance for PwD prisoners.
They continue to be housed in standard prison facilities, leading to discrimination and neglect of their specialized needs, thus defeating the purpose of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).”
Highlighting the plight of PwD inmates, the petitioner said that paraplegic prisoners require modified housing accommodations, accessible toilets, and mobility-friendly infrastructure.
However, Indian prisons, especially high-security ‘Anda’ cells, fail to meet these essential needs. The absence of proper medical care, including physiotherapy and routine physical assessments, exacerbates their suffering.
While prison administration falls under the State List of the Constitution’s Seventh Schedule, the petition argues that most states lack mandatory provisions for ramps and other accessibility measures in prison manuals. Although Delhi, Goa, and Haryana have made some provisions, they remain inadequate.
“The overall prison conditions in India are already challenging for non-disabled inmates. However, the brunt of neglect falls disproportionately on PwD prisoners,” the plea said.
The petitioner further highlighted that overcrowding, lack of supervision, and inadequate differentiation of inmates expose PwD prisoners to increased violence, neglect, and medical emergencies.
“Within such an environment, PwD inmates are particularly vulnerable, and the lack of tailored accommodations further dehumanizes them. While the RPwD Act aims to prevent discrimination, its implementation in prisons remains grossly inadequate,” the petition adds.
The petition referred to Delhi University Professor G.N. Saibaba (a wheelchair-bound academic accused of terrorism) and Fr. Stan Swamy (a Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist suffering from Parkinson’s disease, who died in custody). The petitioner argued that their cases highlight how inadequate prison conditions severely impact the health and survival of PwD inmates.
Additionally, the petition referenced Accused ‘X’ v. State of Maharashtra (2019), where the Supreme Court directed states to ensure the rights of mentally challenged prisoners under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
The petitioner contended that relying solely on judicial interventions leads to a piecemeal approach, making constitutional protections ineffective.
Comparing India’s prison conditions to international standards, the petitioner highlighted that the USA and the UK have statutory provisions mandating accessible, disability-friendly prison facilities, ensuring the protection of PwD inmates from inhumane treatment.
A significant concern raised in the petition is the lack of official data on PwD prisoners. Although the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) publishes Prison Statistics Reports, they fail to specify the number of PwD inmates, making it difficult to assess the scale of the issue.
The petition has been filed by Advocates Thulasi K. Raj, Aparna Menon, Chinnu Maria Antony, and Kaleeswaram Raj, through Advocate-on-Record Mohammed Sadique T.A.
The Court will take up the matter in the next hearing scheduled for April 8, 2025.
