SC issues guidelines to make Tamil Nadu prisons accessible for prisoners with disabilities
"The denial of accessibility and essential care to persons with disabilities incarcerated in prisons amounts to violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution," said a two-judge Bench of the top court of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.
The top court passed the verdict after hearing an appeal filed by one, L Muruganantham, a physically disabled advocate, who had alleged custodial abuse and inadequate medical care while incarcerated in a prison in Tamil Nadu in a case.
Upholding the dignity and the healthcare rights of the prisoners with disabilities, the apex court directed the State to amend the State Prison Manual within 6 months to make it in compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), and other provisions.
"Social and structural barriers they face in society are only magnified within the prison environment. Most prison facilities are structurally inaccessible to individuals with mobility, sensory, or cognitive impairments,' the Court said.
Highlighting that the State has a constitutional and moral obligation to uphold the rights of prisoners with disabilities, the apex court added, this right was not restricted to ensuring non-discriminatory treatment also carries with it an affirmative right to ensure effective rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
3 minutes ago
- Mint
Amid Trump administration's crackdown on immigrants, US deports five 'barbaric' criminals to small African nation
The Donald Trump administration deported five men convicted of violent crimes to Eswatini, a tiny African kingdom, on Tuesday. The deportees – from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba, and Yemen – included murderers and child rapists whose home countries refused to take them back. Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin called them 'uniquely barbaric' criminals now 'off American soil'. The flight followed a recent Supreme Court ruling allowing deportations to countries where migrants have no ties. New immigration rules let officials deport people with just 6 hours' notice in emergencies. Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) – a nation smaller than New Jersey with 1.2 million people – hasn't explained its agreement to accept the deportees. Ruled by King Mswati III since 1986, it's Africa's last absolute monarchy and bans political parties. Pro-democracy groups protested the secrecy, with SWALIMO spokesperson Ingiphile Dlamini stating: 'There's been no official communication about this deal' . Critics worry the poor country can't safely manage violent criminals and note its history of human rights abuses, including torturing detainees. This marks the second African deportation this month; eight men were sent to war-torn South Sudan earlier. The Trump administration is actively seeking similar deals with Rwanda, Angola, and other African nations. While West African leaders discussed accepting deportees during recent White House visits, Nigeria publicly refused, calling it unacceptable. The U.S. has also sent hundreds of Venezuelans to Central American prisons, but Africa is now a focus for 'third-country' removals. Analysts suggest poor nations may agree in exchange for U.S. aid or trade benefits. UN experts and lawyers argue the policy violates international law by sending people to countries where they risk torture. Justice Sonia Sotomayor previously criticized similar deportations, warning migrants could face torture or death. Under the new rules, U.S. officials aren't required to ask if deportees fear persecution in the third country. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended the practice, claiming partner nations will 'take care of them'. However, South Sudan still hasn't revealed the whereabouts of the eight men it received.
Indian Express
6 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Why the SC has made secretly recorded conversations between spouses in court
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that secretly recorded conversations between spouses are admissible evidence in matrimonial disputes, including divorce proceedings. It set aside a 2021 Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which had barred a husband, who sought a divorce, from using secretly recorded phone conversations with his wife as evidence in court. The apex court's ruling changes the contours of spousal or marital privilege in Indian law, which protects private conversations between a husband and a wife during their marriage, and even after the marriage has ended. Spousal privilege means that a person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse in a criminal case. It is rooted in the idea that a degree of protection has to be provided to private conversations between a husband and a wife during their marriage. In India, Section 122 of the Evidence Act codifies this. It states: 'No person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative-in-interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.' Spousal communication is allowed as evidence, according to the law, when the other spouse consents or when one spouse has narrated the events to a third party who testifies in a court. Otherwise, even if a spouse accidentally spills the beans, it is struck off the record as inadmissible evidence that the court cannot rely upon. Spousal privilege does not apply directly in divorce cases where one spouse makes allegations against the other spouse and testifies in a court of law. These allegations are supplemented by evidence such as letters, photographs or testimonies of other people. However, with technological advances, text messages, video and voice recordings, emails are often presented as evidence. Many High Courts have refrained from accepting secret recordings as evidence due to two main reasons: The SC's ruling relied on its 1973 judgment in a case, which pertained to a telephonic conversation recorded by the police to prove a bribery charge against a doctor. At the time, the apex court overlooked how the evidence was obtained, given that the case involved corruption by a public servant and the phone tap was by the state. The SC has now effectively extended this reasoning to matrimonial cases. The court has said that if evidence is relevant, independently verifiable, and falls within statutory exceptions, it can be admitted even if collected in secret. It has also been said that secret recordings are a violation of fundamental rights, but the right to privacy has to be balanced with the right to a fair trial. The SC has interpreted Section 122 to mean that while an individual cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse, it is not impermissible to allow evidence to that effect, especially in matrimonial disputes. The ruling says a telephone that secretly records conversations is 'no different from an eavesdropper.' Simply put, the court here is equating digital evidence to a third party who is a witness to a privileged conversation and is testifying. The SC recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right in 2017. The current ruling is an example of how the court operationalises this right to privacy. The court, in its interpretation of Section 122, said that the provision was drafted into 'sanctity of the marriage' and not to protect privacy within marriage. This is perhaps true for a law of the Victorian era — the Evidence Act came into force in 1872. But privacy as a is now a fundamental right, which protects the inner sphere of the individual from interference from both state and non-state actors. Any infringement of the right to privacy has to be backed by a valid law. The SC also disagreed with the argument that making secret recordings admissible in court would lead to surveillance within marriage. It said, 'If the marriage has reached a stage where spouses are actively snooping on each other, that is in itself a symptom of a broken relationship and denotes a lack of trust between them.' There is also a concern that the ruling could affect women's right to a fair trial, as there is a huge gender gap in smartphone ownership and access to technology in India. There is a 39% divide in ownership of smartphones by women compared to men in the country, according to the Mobile Gender Gap Report 2025. When evidence can be collected at the click of a button, the party with easier access to such technology naturally gets the upper hand.
The Hindu
6 minutes ago
- The Hindu
₹2,569 cr. worth development works to be launched at Sadhana Samavesha in Mysuru on July 19
Development works worth ₹2,569 crore for Mysuru city will be inaugurated and foundation stones will be laid on July 19 during Sadhana Samavesha in Mysuru, said Minister in charge of Mysuru district H.C. Mahadevappa. Addressing a press conference after inspecting the arrangements at Maharaja College Grounds – the venue of the Samavesha - on Wednesday, Dr. Mahadevappa said Chief Minister Siddaramaiah will inaugurate the works that have already been implemented and lay foundation stones for the new ones. 'All put together, the total value of the works is ₹2,569 crore,' he said. These works are in addition to development projects worth ₹2,493 crore that were either inaugurated or for which foundation stones were laid in the six taluks, including H.D. Kote, T. Narasipur, and Periyapatna, a few months ago, the Minister added. 'The Opposition claims the State has no money for development. If that is the case, how are these works being taken up? I can provide documents on the projects implemented and the amount spent,' he asserted. Dr. Mahadevappa said no other government has brought such large-scale development, particularly to Mysuru city. 'It is Chief Minister Siddaramaiah who has sanctioned maximum funds for the region,' he maintained. Key projects listed for the launch and laying foundation stones include ₹502 crore for white-topping and other works under PWD; ₹419 crore for an irrigation project at Heggadanahalli; ₹408 crore for underground electricity cabling by CESC; ₹330 crore for UGD works under Mysuru City Corporation; ₹192 crore for the Unity Mall at the exhibition grounds (State is providing only land to the Centre for the work), and ₹100 crore for new facilities at Mysore Medical College. He said AICC president Mallikarjuna Kharge has been invited to the Samavesha. On expanding K.R. Hospital with sharp increase in patient load, Dr. Mahadevappa said vertical development is possible only if building bylaws are altered, since high-rise structures are not permitted in the vicinity of the palace. 'The bylaws are under consideration,' he replied. He also acknowledged the increasing patient load at Jayadeva Institute in Mysuru, attributing it to lifestyle changes leading to rising health issues. The expansion of the facility will also be looked into, he added. Former Minister and MLA Tanveer Sait, MLA K. Harish Gowda, Deputy Commissioner G. Lakshmikanth Reddy, Police Commissioner Seema Latkar, DCPs Sundar Raj and Bindu Rani, and local Congress leaders were present. Earlier, the Minister inspected the venue and spoke to the officials on the arrangements. Dr. Mahadevappa said nearly one lakh people are expected to attend the event.
