'Jail Shouldn't Dilute Rights Of Prisoners With Disabilities': Supreme Entrusts Oversight To High-Powered Committee

The Supreme Court on April 21 referred certain issues related to prisoners with disabilities to the High Powered Committee constituted in Suhas Chakma case for effective redressal of the prisoners' concerns.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the judgment, having regard to the need for an "effective, structured, and uniform mechanism" to address the issues raised in the case, such as, assistive devices and support mechanism for disabled prisoners.

The Court passed the directions while dealing with a writ petition raising concerns about the conditions of detention and institutional safeguards available to prisoners with disabilities in prisons nationwide. The Court observed that the matter involves issues of considerable importance concerning whether the mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and constitutional protections are being effectively realised in custodial settings.

Noting that only a limited number of States and Union Territories had filed compliance affidavits regarding earlier directions, the Court held that the issues could be more effectively addressed through the High-Powered Committee constituted in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India. The Committee, the Court said, is suitably equipped to undertake a structured and continuous assessment of the statutory frameworks and facilities available to prisoners with disabilities.

It observed:

"The High-Powered Committee, having already been entrusted with the mandate of overseeing systemic concerns relating to the harmonisation of the Rules framed by the States and Union Territories in respect of Open Correctional Institutions, is suitably equipped to examine the present issues in a holistic manner.

The entrustment of the issues raised in the present matter to the High-Powered Committee would ensure a structured, continuous, and expert driven assessment of the prevailing statutory frameworks, along with the practices and facilities extended to prisoners with disabilities across all the States and Union Territories, thereby obviating any fragmentation of proceedings and enabling a cohesive implementation of the directions already issued by this Court."

Further, the Court emphasized that rights of prisoners with disabilities must be given effect to in a manner that accords with a "humane, rights-based approach", ensuring that incarceration does not dilute or abridge the fundamental protections granted under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Relegating the issues to the HPC, the Court issued the following directions:

- Secretary, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Union of India (or his nominee not below the rank of Additional Secretary), shall forthwith start active participation in the proceedings before the HPC;

- The Secretaries of the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment/Department of Social Welfare of all States/Union Territories (or their nominees not below the rank of Additional Secretary) shall also effectively participate in the proceedings before the HPC with immediate effect;

- All States/UTs shall place their compliance affidavits before the HPC within six weeks;

- Petitioners/intervenors may participate in the proceedings before the HPC and/or file representations before it, which shall be considered by the HPC in accordance with law;

- HPC shall ensure effective compliance by all States/UTs of the directions issued by the Court in L. Muruganantham and in the present case. In this regard, it can issue directions to the States/UTs;

- HPC shall formulate a comprehensive plan for provision of appropriate assistive devices, mobility aids, etc. to prisoners with disabilities tailored to their needs and functional requirements. It shall also lay down guidelines in this regard, keeping in mind security concerns of prisons;

- HPC may take assistance of experts and organizations working for persons with disabilities;

- HPC shall file a consolidated status report before the Court, as far as possible within 4months, on the compliance of directions issued by the Court.

The matter has been listed next on September 1, alongwith the Suhas Chakma case.

Before concluding, the Court observed :

"The rights of prisoners with disabilities must be recognised and effectuated in a manner that accords with a humane, rights-based approach, ensuring that incarceration does not, in any manner, dilute or abridge the fundamental protections enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The concerned authorities are, therefore, duty-bound to ensure faithful and effective implementation of these directions, in both letter and spirit."

Case Title: SATHYAN NARAVOOR v. UNION OF INDIA | Writ Petition(C) No(s). 182/2025

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 404

Click here to read the judgment

Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj (VC), Mr. Mohammed Sadique T.A., Ms. Thulasi K. Raj, Ms. Aparna Menon, and Ms. Chinnu Maria Antony.

For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Shivika Mehra, Ms. Sonali Jain, Ms. Hemandri Sharma, Mr. Rohit Ojha, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Chitrangda Rashtravara, Mr. Alankar Gupta, Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Mr. Alok Sangwan, Senior Additional Advocate General, Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Mr. Harsh Mehla, Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, Mr. C. K. Sasi, Dr. K.K. Geetha, Ms. Meena K. Poulose, Mr. Naveen Sharma, Mrs. Swati Bhushan Sharma, Mr. S.K. Sharma, Ms. Payal Gola, Mr. Pradeep Misra, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Mr. Kumar Saurav, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Mr. Arjun D. Singh, Ms. Ishika Neogi, Mr. Divya Tripathi, Mr. Tushar Giri, Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Mr. Ritik Arora, Mr. Shivam Mishra, Mr. Mihir Joshi, Ms. Disha Singh, Ms. Eliza Bar, Ms. Akansha, Ms. Anjali Saxena, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Priyal Sheth, Mr. Ninad Laud, Mr. Guruprasad Naik, Mr. Dcosta Ivo Manuel Simon, Mr. D.K. Thakur, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Mr. Tavleen Singh, Ms. Vallabhi Shukla, Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Rohit Kumar, Mr. Narendra Kumar, Mr. Sudip Lodh, Mr. Neeraj Agarwal, Mr. Jayant Mohan, Ms. Meenakshi Chatterjee, Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Mr. Sourav Singh, Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Mr. Lenin Singh Hijam, Advocate General and Senior Advocate, Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Mr. Karun Shamra, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Mr. T.K. Nayak, Mr. Shovan Mishra, Ms. Bipasa Tripathy, Mr. Shlok Luthra, Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik, Mr. Siddhant Sharma, Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Additional Advocate General, Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, Mr. Krishna Rastogi, Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Mr. Aakash Thakur, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Deep Narayan Sarkar, Mr. G.P. Mahto, Ms. Devina Sehgal, Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Mr. Kunal Mimani, Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Neha Singh, Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Mr. Varun Chugh, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Mr. Mukesh Kr. Verma, and Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal.