Federation of Leprosy Organizations (FOLO) & Another v. Union of India & Others, 2025
The Court noted with concern that discriminatory laws still exist i.e. laws that treat leprosy as a ground for divorce, even though such grounds were repealed by the Personal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
30 July 2025
Judges
Justice Surya Kant ⦁ Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The PIL was filed in 2010 by Federation of Leprosy Organizations (FOLO) seeking the removal of discriminatory laws that treat persons affected by leprosy unfairly.
-
Historically, leprosy was misunderstood as incurable and highly contagious, leading to harsh laws like the Indian Lepers Act, 1898, which allowed arrest without warrant, voting and employment restrictions, and institutional segregation.
-
Medical breakthroughs (like Multi-Drug Therapy in 1979) and WHO declarations confirmed that leprosy is now completely curable and non-contagious.
-
Despite this, many central and state laws continued to contain outdated and discriminatory provisions against leprosy-affected or cured individuals.
-
In 2014 and 2018, the Supreme Court issued directions to all States and UTs to constitute Committees to identify and recommend deletion of such provisions from statutes, regulations, rules, or policies.
-
As of 2025, some States have not yet complied with those directions.
Issues
-
Why do discriminatory provisions still exist in the statutes of many States and Union Territories despite curability of leprosy?
-
Whether non-compliance by States in forming committees and initiating amendments violates constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality?
-
What follow-up mechanisms should be put in place to ensure prompt legislative reform?
-
Whether the Union of India has adequately amended central laws, and what further steps remain?
Held
-
The States and the Union must eliminate discriminatory provisions against leprosy-affected or cured persons to comply with Articles 14 and 21.
-
Electronic service or mere acknowledgment of the issue is not enough actual legislative or executive amendments must follow.
-
The Court remains seized of the matter to ensure continuous monitoring of progress.
Analysis
-
This is a landmark PIL reflecting the evolving intersection of health, dignity, and law.
-
The Court's directions reinforce that legal frameworks must align with medical advancements and social understanding.
-
The slow pace of compliance by States reflects systemic inertia toward marginalized communities.
-
The judgment also stresses the use of executive and legislative powers to correct legal injustices without procedural delays.
-
The inclusion of NHRC as a monitoring authority provides an institutional safeguard against future backsliding.
-
The Court’s proactive stance sets a precedent in ensuring that laws reflect constitutional morality rather than outdated prejudices.