Denied Dignity

**Udit Jain and Vivek Berwal

Introduction

On July 6, 2025, an insurance agent with 80 per cent disability was pushed into sombre conditions of jail, despite persistent objections by family members. When he was granted bail, the whole family waited outside the prison, where they saw an ambulance wheeling him out unconscious. The man was dead. Inside the jails, G.N. Saibaba, a person who was 90 per cent disabled, used the toilet once every two days as the decorous Delhi professor was not provided with a wheelchair for more than eight years. He spent close to a decade in the arduous conditions until he passed away due to various health complications he developed during his grim condition in prison. The deceased professor earlier highlighted that in jail, he was treated like a terrorist and was provided medicine after he had forced himself to go on a hunger strike.

According to the Prison Statistics India Report, India detains 5732220 prisoners, with three out of four being undertrials. Among them, two-thirds belong to marginalised groups; however, there remains a void when it comes to data relating to people with disabilities. The World Health Organisation’s global report on health equity reports that approximately 16 per cent of the global population experiences some form of disability, thus constituting the largest demographic minority.  Despite Indian efforts to align law with the established CRPD principles, the subsequent Model Prison Management Bill of 1999 and Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act of 2023 failed to address the needs of prisoners with disabilities.

In addition to unrecognised physical disability, the Indian prison system has overlooked the mental health aspect of prisoners. With suicide remaining a major cause of unnatural death in prisons, psychological care in these sombre cells remains inadequate. A report showcases that two in three sanctioned posts for psychologists and psychiatrists in prison remained vacant, and there is a presence of one mental health worker for every 23 thousand prisoners. The NIMHANS review of mental health in prison said, “Prison health is often neglected and continues to be ignored despite objective evidence supporting the need for effective health policies in prisons.” The executive has glaringly failed in protecting the right to health of prisoners and has cited insolent reasons as “prisoners need not be treated” when asked to do so.

The Supreme Court’s recent guidelines on providing prisoners adequate redressal mechanisms through the legal framework of RPwd Act serve as a ray of hope. The 15-page order directs the State and UT to ensure disabled prisoners with special needs. This article seeks to illuminate how India’s prison architecture structurally excludes persons with disabilities and how it leads to the violation of their human rights. It then examines systematic failures, such as inaccessible infrastructure and denial of assistive devices. The article also discusses how the Indian judicial system has glaringly neglected the importance of mental health in such prison systems and how a better psychological framework is the need of the hour. In doing so, the article undertakes a comparative analysis of the world’s most humane and rights-respecting prisons. Finally, drawing on recent judicial interventions, it concludes with a pragmatic passage on evolving a rights-based and disability-inclusive prison reform model that is grounded in accountability, transparency, and non-discrimination.

Designed to Exclude: Disability in Indian Prisons

The National Crime Records Bureau, in its Prison Statistics, inadvertently excluded disability statistics, despite various international conventions, which make such data indispensable with respect to the Sustainable Development Goals. When an Indian prison lacks amenities to sustain a non-disabled person, to imagine the plight of a person with disability would be ominous. (Indian Justice Report 2023). There had been institutionalised efforts, but they have proved to be deficient, with both the Model Prison Management Bill of 1999 and the Model Prison and Correctional Service Act lacking any specific provision for disabled prisoners. 

A systematic research study by a Bihar NGO and an academic writer sought to highlight the despondent state of the people living with disabilities in prison. Some of the most common challenges faced by prisoners living with disability is bullying, social isolation, and verbal and physical abuse. There are significant infrastructural flaws that need to be addressed, for instance, very limited tactile cues and the absence of auditory assistance, which leads to frequent falls and injuries. The Indian prison system is mired with other substantial deficiencies, such as inaccessible restrooms, cramped spaces, and inadequate bedding. 

Such pertinent questions regarding special infrastructure and data on prisoners with physical disabilities were posed to the Ministry of Social Justice, but the ministry evaded the responsibility by reinstating it as a matter under the state list. The Indian Justice Report 2025 meticulously recognises the grim failure concomitant to the unavailability of the disability data of the prisoners, as it is pervasively seen that many times people acquire disability after they enter the prison cell. The lugubrious state of the Indian prison can be witnessed from cases, such as Khatri and Ors v State of Bihar, where undertrial prisoners were blinded by police and jail authorities through needles and acid while being in custody. Recently, in UP, a case was registered after alleged police tortured a farmer in custody, hanging him upside down and beating him so severely that both his legs were broken. 

There exist systematic and institutional flaws in the design of the Indian Prison system, which could be effectively addressed with a strong government will. The main aim of the prison system and the justice system was to reform and protect, which has now become spaces where disability is often produced and disconsolately ignored. There is the urgent requirement of a rights-centred approach which recognises prisoners with disabilities, not as administrative burdens but as rights bearing individual entitled to protection, care and justice. 

Mental Health in Prisons: The Missing Jurisprudence

The psychiatric morbidity among prison inmates is ineluctably higher than in the general population. Various Indian studies showcase that the current prevalence of mental health illness ranges from 21 per cent to 33 per cent among the prisoners, that too excluding disorders such as substance use disorder, which shares its major affinity to the inmates, with its range varying from 47 to 57 per cent. The cause and effect between crime and psychiatric disorder often stand bidirectionally. When 120 undertrial prisoners were examined, 35 per cent of them had existing psychiatric disorders. While India struggles with cumbersome trial procedures, 65 per cent of the prisoners await trial, catalysing already dormant depression and anxiety. 

India has 0.75 psychiatrists per 100,000 total population. When the Indian Constitution mentions the right to health under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, it specifically doesn’t exclude an incarnated person. There is firstly a clear lack of data, and even if there is availability of data, it’s grossly underrepresented, while NCRB states that only 1.3 per cent of inmates face mental health issues.  The Indian Justice Report 2025 notes that there are only 25 psychiatrists sanctioned nationally for more than a thousand prisons that exist. While legal frameworks like the Mental HealthCare Act, 2017 and the Model Prison Manual, 2016, mandate mental health services, training for medical officers and minimum care standards. The actual provision on the fund departs from the mentioned value. The prison culture, social stigma around mental illness and lack of screening mechanisms often lead to untreated and unrecognised psychiatric conditions.

In Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court held that the purpose of justice is reformation, that rehabilitation and reformation form a part of sentencing policy and that prisons should be correction houses, not instruments of cruel punishment. But in reality, Indian prison remains largely punishment-focused, not rehabilitation or health-oriented. It is argued that there must be institutional reinforcement and implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, within correctional settings. Systematic screening at entry, periodic assessment and psychiatric diagnosis protocols should be standard practise. There must be an irrefutable effort that must be initiated to expand human resources, that is, recruit and train more psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors and social workers dedicated to prison settings. A peer support intervention might prove to be propitious as well. 

Judicial Expansion of Disability Rights within the Indian Prison System

The issue on lack of rights of disabled prisoners was touched upon recently in L Muruganatam v. State of Tamil Nadu. The case concerned a falsely imprisoned disabled lawyer, highlighting systemic gaps. The Court found the existing prison manuals and rules outdated, often conflating physical disabilities with mental illness, thus denying the right to reasonable accommodation. It clarified that this failure to protect the rights of disabled prisoners violates constitutional guarantees and international obligations, which extend beyond non-discrimination to rehabilitation and reintegration.

The court further issued directions in furtherance of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, and India’s obligations under the United Nations Convention of Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006. Key mandates include: disability identification at admission, accessible communication, universal accessibility in prisons, dedicated therapy spaces, access audits, healthcare parity, training for medical officers, appropriate diets, disability training for staff, amendments to prison manuals, consultation with civil society, monitoring committee, disaggregated data maintenance, and compliance report to SHRC. The judgment set a clear roadmap to implement the 2016 Act and India’s international obligations.

While progressive, the guidelines in L Muruganatam were specifically for Tamil Nadu. The recent decision of Satyan Naravoor v. Union of India extended the application of L Muruganatam nationwide. The court issued guidelines which supplemented L Muruganatam with additional measures: a redressal system specifically for disabled prisoners, facilities for meaningful access to inclusive education, enhanced visitation provisions to ensure family support, emotional well-being and continuous monitoring of their special needs. The court further directed all States and Union Territories to submit a compliance report before the court within four months, indicating the measures undertaken in furtherance of the guidelines issued in L Muruganatam. However, the gap between judicial mandate and on-ground reality persists, making executive enforcement critical.

Equality Behind Prison Walls: Global Approaches to Disability and Incarceration

A comparative analysis reveals diverse enforcement models, offering pragmatic lessons for India’s implementation challenges. The foundation of these rights is enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities which specifically obliges the states to ensure full and effective participation and inclusion of persons with disabilities in society. Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further mandates that all persons deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for dignity. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the Nelson Mandela rules, 2015, further emphasise human treatment, medical care and protection for vulnerable prisoners, including those with disabilities.   

 In the UK, the special rights of disabled prisoners are enforced by the Equality Act 2010. The Act mandates “reasonable accommodation” for disabled inmates to prevent disadvantages. It puts a mandate on public authorities, including prisons, via the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) by virtue of which they must actively work to eliminate discrimination. In S.H. v. United Kingdom, it was held that under Article 3 of echr State must provide conditions that respect the dignity and basic needs of disabled prisoners. Instead of sweeping judicial intervention like in India, the UK relies on well-established legal, administrative, and non-profit bodies to enforce these rights.

 In the US, disabled prisoners’ rights are primarily protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, alongside constitutional protections against cruel punishment (Eighth Amendment) and discrimination (Fourteenth Amendment). There is a prohibition on “deliberately indifferent” to a prisoner’s serious medical needs, including special requirements related to disability. In Estelle v. Gamble, the  U.S. Supreme Court upheld that deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. As opposed to the US, India’s recent, uniform, and judicially enforceable national framework emphasises non-negotiable fundamental rights for every inmate.

Norway is a leader in a “normalisation” model, designing facilities that simulate life outside prison walls to promote dignity and rehabilitation. Canada has pioneered the constitutional entrenchment of disability rights within its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, providing a foundational legal basis for equality demands. Germany has robust, high accessibility standards and a system for “supported decision-making” for individuals with cognitive disabilities, while Sweden uses a “legal mentor” system that respects inmate preferences. Thus, these international examples illuminate that genuine prison reform must extend beyond mere legislation, shall be demandingly courageous and human-centred, thus safeguarding and protecting dignity, upholding autonomy and transforming incarceration into a space of meaningful rehabilitation and inclusion for every inmate.

Institutional and Structural Pathways for Disability-Inclusive Prison Reform in India – The Way Forward 

India has much to do to reform its prisons on the ground level and bring visible results. The Supreme Court guidelines, although revolutionary, face hurdles in their implementation due to the prisons suffering from notorious systemic issues. The landmark decisions by the apex court are very recent, and the administrators and the public still have a persistent “punitive mindset”. To fully realise the fruits of the judicial mandates, there should be the establishment of root-level, local bodies like the UK to oversee the implementation of these guidelines. Each prison should have a Disability Rights & Accommodation Unit headed by a trained welfare officer (not medical staff alone), functioning on lines similar to UK equality teams. These would be responsible for individualised accommodation plans, coordination between medical officers, prison staff and families, and periodic review of assistive needs. Moreover, before taking action against any disabled prisoner, such as solitary confinement or transfer, Disability Impact Assessment should be recorded. Statutory recognition of these mandates would solidify the rights.

Accountability mechanisms, cultural reforms and technological changes would also greatly benefit not only the disabled prisoners’ rights but the prisons as a whole. For accountability, there should be a necessary submission of annual or bi-annual reports by prison authorities to the state, and by the state to the central government, showcasing whether the reforms are implemented properly or not. Cultural reforms can be initiated by training and sensitisation programs, while technological reforms can be introduced by a centralised, anonymised database recording the data regarding disability in prisons, and assistive technology integration in the prisons. India’s disability-prison jurisprudence has leapfrogged doctrinally but lags institutionally. Courts have created a rights-rich framework, but without decentralised enforcement, statutory backing, and cultural change, these rights remain confined to judgments being eloquent in language but absent behind prison walls. 

**Udit Jain and Vivek Berwal are third-year students at National Law University, Jodhpur.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily align with the views of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.