Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Saushriya Havelia, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Ms. M Karthiga, AOR

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case of L. Muruganantham vs. State Of Tamil Nadu & Others:

Case Details and Parties * The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. of the Supreme Court of India. * The case is Civil Appeal No. 9487 of 2025, arising out of SLP (C) No. 1785 OF 2023 (!) . * The appellant, L. Muruganantham, is a physically challenged individual suffering from Becker Muscular Dystrophy and autism (!) . * The respondent includes the State of Tamil Nadu and various police/prison officials (!) .

Facts of the Case * The appellant was wrongfully arrested on 29.02.2020 based on a false complaint lodged by a henchman of his paternal uncle (!) . * He was detained at the Central Prison, Coimbatore, from 29.02.2020 to 10.03.2020 (!) . * During incarceration, the appellant alleged that he faced neglect regarding his health and nutritional needs due to his disability (!) . * Specific grievances included a lack of ramps, accessible toilets, protein-rich food, and adequate medical treatment (physiotherapy/psychotherapy) (!) (!) . * The appellant claimed that the hostile environment aggravated his mental health conditions, leading to sleep deprivation, chronic pain, and ulceration (!) .

Procedural History and Lower Court Orders * The appellant first filed a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), seeking compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- (!) . * The SHRC awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and recommended disciplinary action against the arresting officer but dismissed the complaint against the prison authorities (!) (!) . * The appellant approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras (W.P. No. 22431 of 2021) seeking enhanced compensation and directions for prison reform (!) . * The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5,00,000/- (with Rs. 4,00,000/- borne by the State) and directed disciplinary action against the police officer (!) (!) . * The High Court dismissed the complaint against the prison authorities, stating that the appellant was housed in the prison hospital and received some amenities, though records were inconsistent (!) (!) . * The appellant preferred the present appeal to the Supreme Court (!) .

Issues Considered by the Supreme Court * Whether the order of the High Court enhancing compensation to Rs. 5,00,000/- calls for interference by the Supreme Court (!) . * Whether adequate and appropriate facilities are being made available to prisoners with disabilities in Tamil Nadu prisons in compliance with the RPwD Act, 2016 and UNCRPD (!) .

Court's Findings and Observations * The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the arrest and initial treatment by the police constituted human rights violations (!) . * Regarding compensation, the Court found the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- awarded by the High Court to be fair, just, and reasonable, and declined to interfere further (!) (!) . * The Court dismissed the claim of human rights violation attributable to the prison authorities in this specific instance, noting they could not be held liable without evidence of wilful negligence, though it acknowledged systemic issues (!) . * The Court expressed deep concern over the systemic neglect of prisoners with disabilities and the lack of specific legal frameworks for them in prisons (!) . * It highlighted that most prison facilities are structurally inaccessible and that prison staff often lack training regarding disability rights (!) (!) . * The Court noted a significant data gap, as the NCRB does not maintain disaggregated data on the disability status of prisoners (!) .

Directives Issued * The Court issued comprehensive directives for the State Government of Tamil Nadu to implement the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (!) . * Identification and Accessibility: Prison authorities must identify prisoners with disabilities at admission and provide all rules and information in accessible formats (Braille, sign language, etc.) (!) (!) . * Infrastructure: All prison premises must be equipped with wheelchair-friendly spaces, accessible toilets, ramps, and sensory-safe environments (!) . * Audit: A State-level access audit of all prisons in Tamil Nadu must be completed within six months by an expert committee (!) . * Healthcare: Prisons must provide healthcare equivalent to the community, including physiotherapy, speech therapy, psychiatric services, and assistive devices (!) . * Diet: Every prisoner with a disability must be provided a nutritious and medically appropriate diet tailored to their needs (!) . * Training: All prison staff must undergo comprehensive training on the rights of persons with disabilities, including non-discrimination and proper handling of challenges (!) . * Manual Revision: The State Prison Manual must be reviewed and amended within six months to conform with the RPwD Act, 2016 and UNCRPD (!) . * Monitoring: The State must constitute a monitoring committee to conduct periodic inspections and submit compliance reports every three months (!) . * Data Maintenance: The State must maintain and update disaggregated data on the disability status of prisoners and make it available in the public domain (!) . * Visitorial System: The Court directed the constitution of Boards of Visitors and the prompt appointment of non-official visitors to monitor prison conditions (!) (!) . * Reporting: The Director General of Prisons must file a comprehensive compliance report before the State Human Rights Commission within three months (!) .