L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others, 2025
The Prison authorities are not obligated to provide personalized or luxurious food but must ensure adequate, nutritious, and medically appropriate meals.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
17 July 2025
Judges
Justice JB Pardiwala ⦁ Justice R. Mahadevan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner, an advocate with a disability, was arrested in connection with a civil dispute.
-
He alleged custodial torture by police during arrest and claimed denial of basic facilities in prison, including a protein-rich diet (eggs, chicken, nuts) and adequate medical care.
-
The Tamil Nadu Human Rights Commission awarded compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and ordered disciplinary action against the police but dismissed the complaint against prison authorities.
-
The Madras High Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 5 lakhs but also dismissed allegations against jail authorities.
Issues
-
Whether prison authorities are constitutionally or morally obligated to provide personalized or costly food items to prisoners with disabilities?
-
Whether the denial of such food and medical treatment amounts to a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21?
-
Whether institutional shortcomings in prison facilities can be considered human rights violations?
-
The need for disability-sensitive reforms and accommodations in prisons?
Held
-
The appeal was dismissed to the extent of prison authorities’ liability.
-
The Compensation awarded to petitioner was justified and maintained.
-
The Prison authorities are not obligated to provide personalized or luxurious food but must ensure adequate, nutritious, and medically appropriate meals.
-
The Institutional shortcomings do not automatically translate to human rights violation
Analysis
-
The judgment strikes a balance between prisoners' rights and practical constraints faced by correctional facilities.
-
It reinforces the principle that fundamental rights like dignity and life must be protected but clarifies their limits concerning non-essential accommodations.
-
The ruling calls for urgent structural reforms to better accommodate persons with disabilities, highlighting systemic neglect and infrastructural inaccessibility.
-
It also points out the glaring gap in disaggregated data on prisoners with disabilities, which impacts policy and accountability.
-
The court’s emphasis on the State’s custodial role as protector (not tormentor) underscores the humane treatment mandate under the Constitution.