The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that every prisoner has a right under Article 21 of the Constitution to periodic medical check-ups and to a diet suited to their individual medical condition [Kalai Selvi Vs State of Tamil Nadu].
A Division Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and R Kalaimathi said that prisoners remain entirely in the care, custody and control of the State and that prison authorities are therefore, obliged to ensure timely diagnosis, appropriate medical care and reasonable accommodation for inmates’ health conditions.
The Court also emphasised that dietary needs of inmates might vary as per their individual condition.
“Some prisoners may have renal issues. Their diet should have less of salt. Some prisoners may be diabetic. Their food regime will have to be different. The jail authorities are obliged to provide such diet as is suitable for the unique body condition of each prisoner.”
The Court delivered the ruling on a plea filed by a person named Kalaiselvi seeking 28 days ordinary leave without escort for her father Murugesan, a 67-year-old life convict lodged at Palayamkottai Central Prison.
Murugesan has spent over six years in prison and underwent amputation of his right leg on October 10, 2025 due to diabetes-related complications, including vein damage and major ulceration.
In a key ruling, the Court declared:
“We hold that every prisoner has a right to have a periodical medical check up which would fall within the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Bench emphasised that periodic screening is essential to identify health conditions among inmates.
“Such check ups alone will indicate who is suffering from what condition.”
The Bench noted that the prisoner in the present case suffered amputation while in custody.
“We are of the opinion that if only his condition had been diagnosed well in advance and there had been suitable medical intervention and providing of appropriate diet, such a fate would not have befallen him at all.”
The Court underscored the State’s duty towards prisoners with disabilities.
“A prisoner is also a person. He is entirely in the care, custody and control of the prison authorities. They therefore have to assume the duty to be reasonably accommodative towards the special needs of prisoners with disability.”
The Bench added that prisoners can enforce this duty through writ proceedings.
“This duty can be enforced by individual prisoners with disability by filing writ proceedings. They can demand that they should be provided with the required facilities.”
The Court referred to recent Supreme Court decisions including L Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu and Sathyan Naravoor v. Union of India concerning the rights of prisoners with disabilities and directed their immediate enforcement to the extent applicable in the present case.
The Bench also called for systemic medical screening in the prison.
“Since an early diagnosis can prevent calamities such as amputation, we direct the Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai to hold a master health check up for all the prisoners once in two years.”
The Court also underscored that dietary requirements may vary with individual prisoners.
“Merely because one is a prisoner, one cannot be given a diet that is unsuitable for his body condition. Otherwise, one's condition is bound to deteriorate.”
The Dean of Government Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli was directed to conduct a medical camp to identify diabetic prisoners and provide medicines and insulin treatment wherever required.
The Court also issued detailed directions regarding facilities for the amputee prisoner, including providing a cot, table, appropriate toilet facilities, counselling and periodic medical monitoring.
It also directed that assistive devices be provided and that he be housed in an accessible block with support from another inmate if required.
The Bench expressed hope for improved prison administration.
“Tihar jail had a Kiran Bedi for a brief while and her tenure did make a difference.We hope the current incumbent Superintendent of Palayamkottai Central Prison would take her as a role model and ensure that Central Prison, Palayamkottai is a model prison when it comes to respecting the rights of prisoners with disabilities.”
The Court also granted Murugesan 28 days of ordinary leave without escort from February 28 to March 27 subject to weekly reporting before the SIPCOT Police Station in Thoothukudi district and compliance with the Jail Manual.
The petitioner was represented by advocates R Alagumani and SM Mohamed Yunnis Raja
State was represented by advocates T Senthil Kumar, Public Prosecutor.
[Read Judgment]