Summary of the Judgment: L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others (2025 INSC 844)

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others
Court: Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No.: 9487 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1785 of 2023)
Judges: Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Date: July 15, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment revolves around the following legal frameworks:

• Constitutional Provisions:
  Article 14: Right to Equality
  Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty (includes dignity and humane treatment)

• Statutes:
  Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act):
  Sections 3, 6, 25, 38, 39, 40, 45, 47(1)(a), and 80.
  Emphasizes non-discrimination, accessibility, and reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities (PwDs).
  Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993:
  Section 2(d): Defines "human rights violations."
  Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983:
  Rules 196, 197, 198(iii), 405, and 845 (medical care and diet for prisoners).

• International Conventions:
  United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), 2006:
  Article 15 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) and Article 31 (data collection on PwDs).
  Nelson Mandela Rules (UN Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners):
  Rules on healthcare, accessibility, and inspections.

3. Basic Judgment Details

Background:

• The appellant, L. Muruganantham, is an advocate with 80% locomotor disability (Becker Muscular Dystrophy) and mental health conditions (autism, ARFID).

• He was falsely implicated in a criminal case (FIR under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC) by his paternal uncle’s associate and arrested on 29.02.2020.

• During his 10-day incarceration (29.02.2020 to 10.03.2020), he alleged:
  Denial of protein-rich diet, physiotherapy, psychotherapy, and accessible facilities (toilets, ramps).
  Deterioration of health due to neglect (disability increased from 70% to 80%).

• He filed complaints before the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) and later the Madras High Court, seeking compensation and systemic reforms.

Key Findings by Courts:

• SHRC (2021): Awarded ₹1 lakh compensation (recoverable from the erring police officer) but dismissed claims against prison authorities.

• High Court (2022): Enhanced compensation to ₹5 lakhs (₹4L by State, ₹1L from the officer) and directed sensitization programs for police/prison staff.

• Supreme Court: Upheld the High Court’s compensation but issued sweeping directives for prison reforms for PwDs.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

A. Compensation for Human Rights Violations

• The SC upheld the ₹5 lakh compensation, noting:
  The illegal arrest and police misconduct violated human rights (RPwD Act, Article 21).
  Prison authorities provided basic medical care (hospital admission, milk/eggs intermittently) but failed in reasonable accommodations (e.g., protein diet, therapy).
  No deliberate malice by jail officials, but systemic gaps existed.

B. Systemic Reforms for Prisoners with Disabilities

The SC issued 15 directives to Tamil Nadu and other states, including:

1. Identification & Accessibility:
   Screen PwDs at admission; provide rules in Braille/sign language.
   Ensure wheelchair-friendly infrastructure, ramps, and sensory-safe spaces.

2. Healthcare & Diet:
   Provide physiotherapy, psychotherapy, and assistive devices.
   Tailor nutritious diets to medical needs (e.g., protein for muscular dystrophy).

3. Training & Compliance:
   Train prison staff on disability rights and non-discrimination.
   Amend the Prison Manual to align with RPwD Act and UNCRPD.

4. Monitoring & Data:
   Conduct access audits every 6 months.
   Maintain disaggregated data on PwDs in prisons (per Article 31, UNCRPD).

C. Key Observations:

• Prisons are "tail-ends" of justice: Outdated infrastructure and neglect worsen conditions for PwDs.

• Dignity over retribution: Punishment is restriction of liberty, not denial of humane treatment.

• International obligations: India must comply with UNCRPD and Nelson Mandela Rules.

D. Precedents Cited:

• Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021): Reasonable accommodation is a right under RPwD Act.

• Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India (2016): Human rights approach for PwDs.

• Rama Murthy v. Karnataka (1997): Urgent need for prison reforms.

Conclusion

The judgment balances individual justice (compensation for Muruganantham) with structural reforms for PwDs in prisons. It reinforces:

• Constitutional rights (Articles 14, 21) for prisoners.

• State accountability under RPwD Act and UNCRPD.

• Urgent need for accessible prisons, trained staff, and data transparency.

Final Direction: Tamil Nadu must submit a compliance report to the SHRC within 3 months.

Note: The judgment sets a precedent for inclusive prison systems and underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting vulnerable groups.