SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 429

VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Sathyan Naravoor – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, Adv. (VC) Mr. Mohammed Sadique T.a., AOR Ms. Thulasi K Raj, Adv. Ms. Aparna Menon, Adv. Ms. Chinnu Maria Antony, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Ms. Hemandri Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rohit Ojha, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Ms. Chitrangda Rashtravara, Adv. Mr. Alankar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. AlOk Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Harsh Mehla, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Dr. K.K. Geetha, Adv. Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Mr. Naveen Sharma, AOR Mrs. Swati Bhushan Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Adv. Ms. Payal Gola, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv. Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv. Ms. Ishika Neogi, Adv. Mr. Divya Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv. Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv. Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv. Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mihir Joshi, Adv. Ms. Disha Singh, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Ms. Akansha, Adv. Ms. Anjali Saxena, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Ms. Priyal Sheth, Adv. Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv. Mr. Guruprasad Naik, Adv. Mr. Dcosta Ivo Manuel Simon, AOR Mr. D K Thakur, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Tavleen Singh, Adv. Ms. Vallabhi Shukla, Adv. Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Rohit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Narendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sudip Lodh, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR Ms. Meenakshi Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Lenin Singh Hijam, Adv. Gen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Shamra, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv. Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR Ms. Bipasa Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Shlok Luthra, Adv. Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik, AOR Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, A.A.G. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Krishna Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Deep Narayan Sarkar, Adv. Mr. G P Mahto, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Neha Singh, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kr. Verma, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR

Table of Content
1. importance of rights of prisoners with disabilities (Para 1)
2. existing directives for prisoners’ rights (Para 2 , 3)
3. role of the high-powered committee (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. new directives for compliance and cooperation (Para 7)
5. guarantee of dignity and rights adherence (Para 9 , 10)

ORDER :

Mehta, J.

1. The present proceedings bring to the fore issues of considerable importance concerning the rights, conditions of detention, and institutional safeguards available to prisoners with disabilities within prison systems across the country. The matter necessitates a closer examination of the extent to which the mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [For short, “RPwD Act, 2016”], and the constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and non-discrimination are being effectively realised in custodial settings, and whether adequate mechanisms exist to secure their meaningful implementation.

2. This Court, vide order dated 2nd December, 2025, noted that the grievances raised by the petitioner herein stand substantially ventilated by the directions issued by this Court in L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others , (2025) 10 SCC 401. In the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top