ADVERTISEMENT
Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Smt. Pavithra Gowda on 4 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
R
Reserved on : 03.02.2026
Pronounced on : 04.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.1421 OF 2026 (GM - RES)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP)
AND:
1 . SMT. PAVITHRA GOWDA
D/O. PUTTANNA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
NO.808, 24TH CROSS,
KENCHENAHALLI ROAD,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
2
2 . NAGARAJA R.,
S/O RACHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
NO.432, A AND B BLOCK,
RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA,
MYSURU - 570 022.
3 . LAKSHMAN M.,
S/O MARIYAPPA C.,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
NO.1354, 9TH MAIN,
R.P.C. LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)
(SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP TO ASSIST THE COURT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS,
2023/READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH /
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2026 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-57)
AT BENGALURU, IN SPECIAL CASE NO.1319 OF 2024 (ANNEXURE-
A) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 03.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner/State of Karnataka in this writ petition is calling
in question an order dated 12-01-2026 passed by the LVI Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in S.C.No.1319 of 2024 by
which the respondents are permitted to have home food once a
week.
2. Heard Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor for the petitioner, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for
respondents 2 and 3 and Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special
Public Prosecutor who was called upon to assist the Court.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
The 1st respondent is accused No.1 in S.C.No.1319 of 2024
registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC
inter alia. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the
matter before the concerned Court. Respondent/accused No.1 and
4
several other accused place a request before the concerned Court
to permit them to get home food and other amenities such as
newspapers, radio, books, etc.. The concerned Court passes an
order directing the prison authorities to allow home food to be given
to the respondents. An intimation to this regard is also sent to the
concerned jail authorities. The state - petitioner does not implement
the said order but seeks a clarification from the concerned court
stating that permitting home food to the respondent accused
persons would result in chaos as it would be very difficult for the
prison authorities to check the quality and safety of the food. In the
clarification, the petitioners also disclose the facilities existing in the
prisons to meet the dietary requirements of the respondents as
provided under the law. The concerned Court then passes the
impugned order on the clarification sought by the petitioner,
permitting the respondents - accused Nos.1, 11 and 12 to receive
home food once a week and in other circumstances as and when
advised by the doctor without any clarification. It is this order that
rejects the clarification of the petitioner that has driven the state -
petitioner to approach this Court in the subject petition.
5
4. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
Sri B.N. Jagadeesha representing the State/petitioner would
vehemently contend that the Apex Court has clearly directed that
no special treatment should be given to any of the accused involved
in the subject special case who are now under trial prisoners. He
would further submit that by a vague and bald order, the concerned
Court has allowed the request of accused Nos. 1, 11 and 12 to get
home food once a week. A clarification sought to the said direction
is rejected with a stern warning that if it is not implemented,
appropriate orders would be passed. Therefore, the State is
constrained to file the subject petition, on the score that the
accused in the subject case, cannot be given a differential
treatment in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of the accused. He would also place reliance on certain provisions of
the Karnataka Prisons & Correctional Services Manual, 2021 which
give the prisoners, the right to file complaints against the food
served in prisons and also for daily inspection of the food served in
the prisons.
6
5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Sunil Kumar
representing accused Nos. 11 and 12/ respondents 2 and 3 herein
would vehemently refute the submissions of the state/petitioner
contending that, though the order is passed long ago on 19-11-
2025, it has not yet been implemented. The clarification also is
filed at a later point in time. Therefore, the concerned Court has
appropriately allowed home food for accused Nos. 1, 11 and 12 on
the score that the Doctor has so advised. He seeks to place reliance
on the special treatment being given to other under trial prisoners.
He would further contend that the law provides that in certain
circumstances home cooked food can be given and what is now
ordered to be given is only that, once a week. Therefore, it is
ununderstandable as to why the State must be aggrieved by this
order.
6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would refute
the submissions of the respondents in contending that the only
person who was given home cooked food was on the advise or
prescription of a doctor in Crime No.621 of 2024. Even that is now
withdrawn. No special treatment is given to any of the inmates, be
it under trials or convicts. A circular is issued by the Director
7
General of Prisons directing that no differential treatment should be
given to any person.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record. In furtherance whereof, the only issue that
arises for consideration in this case is, whether an under trial
prisoner is entitled to get home food and if so, under what
circumstance?
8. The afore-narrated facts, dates or link in the chain of
events, all lie in a narrow compass at this juncture. Before
embarking upon consideration of the subject issue on its merit, I
deem it appropriate to notice the statutory frame work that governs
or regulates food in the prison. The enactments that are required to
be noticed are the Prisons Act, 1894 ('the 1894 Act' for short);
Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963; Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974; and
Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021. The
issue in the lis revolves round the aforesaid enactments. Let me
first consider the central legislation, the Prisons Act, 1894.
8
8.1. Chapter-VI of the 1894 Act deals with food, clothing and
bedding of civil and unconvicted criminal prisoners. Sections 31, 32
and 33 are germane to be noticed. They read as under:
"CHAPTER VI
FOOD, CLOTHING AND BEDDING OF CIVIL AND
UNCONVICTED CRIMINAL PRISONERS
31. Maintenance of certain prisoners from private
sources.--A civil prisoner or an unconvicted criminal
prisoner shall be permitted to maintain himself, and to
purchase, or receive from private sources at proper
hours, food, clothing, bedding or other necessaries, but
subject to examination and to such rules as may be
approved by the Inspector General.
32. Restriction on transfer of food and clothing
between certain prisoners.--No part of any food, clothing,
bedding or other necessaries belonging to any civil or
unconvicted criminal prisoner shall be given, hired or sold to any
other prisoner; and any prisoner transgressing the provisions of
this section shall lose the privilege of purchasing food or
receiving it from private sources, for such time as the
Superintendent thinks proper.
33. Supply of clothing and bedding to civil and
unconvicted criminal prisoners.--(1) Every civil prisoner and
unconvicted prisoner unable to provide himself with sufficient
clothing and bedding shall be supplied by the Superintendent
with such clothing and bedding as may be necessary.
(2) When any civil prisoner has been committed to prison
in execution of a decree in favour of a private person, such
person, or his representative, shall, within forty-eight hours
after the receipt by him of a demand in writing, pay to the
Superintendent the cost of the clothing and bedding so supplied
9
to the prisoner; and in default of such payment the prisoner
may be released."
Section 31 of the 1894 Act deals with maintenance of certain
prisoners from private sources. Food, clothing and bedding would
be permitted to unconvicted criminal prisoner from private sources
at proper hours subject to examination and rules as may be
approved by the Inspector General of Police. Sections 32 and 33 of
the 1894 Act deal with restriction on transfer of food and clothing
between the prisoners.
8.2. The next enactment is, the Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Sections 30, 31 and
32 of Chapter VI of the Act deal with food, clothing and bedding of
unconvicted criminal prisoners. It is in pari-materia with the 1894
Act which is the Central Act. Therefore, no explanation is required.
8.3. The State Government invoking its power under the Act
has notified certain Rules called the Karnataka Prisons Rules, 1974
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short). Rule 2 deals with
the definitions. Rule 2(j) of the Rules reads as follows:
"2. Definitions:.... ....
10
(j) "Under trial prisoner" means a person who was been
committed to prison custody pending investigation or trail
by a competent authority."
Rule 6 of the Rules is also germane to be noticed. It reads as
follows:
"6. Medical Officer: -(1) The Medical Officer shall
maintain a register in the prescribed from No. 1 in which he
shall record every visit paid to the prison or a portion thereof,
the classes of prisoners visited the number of prisoners in the
hospital and any other matter which he considers should be
brought to the notice of the Superintendent especially (1) any
defect in the food, clothing and bedding or in the
cleanliness, drainage, sanitation, water supply which the
Medical Officer considers injurious to the health together
with suggestions for the remedy of such defects.
(2) any occurrence of importance connected with hospital
administration, any marked increase in the number of in or out-
patients and apparent causes for the same.
(3) any observations or recommendations regarding
individual prisoners (2) The register referred to in sub-rule (1)
shall be sent daily or more often, if necessary, to the
Superintendent who shall take such action thereon as he deems
necessary."
Rule 2(j) of the Rules defines an under trial prisoner as a person
who has been committed to prison custody pending investigation or
trial by a competent authority. Rule 6 states that it is the
responsibility of the Medical Officer to bring to the notice of the
Superintendent any defect in food, clothing and bedding or in the
cleanliness in the prison. Rules 17, 81 and 83 read as follows:
11
"17. Classes of prisoners: - (1) Under trial
prisoners shall be divided into two classes, namely
special and ordinary class.
(2) Convicted prisoners shall be divided into three
classes namely (1) A class, (2) B class, (3) C class.
... ... ...
CHATPER XII
Dietary
81. Prisoners to receive diet according to scale: -
(1) Every prisoner shall be entitled to received daily at
prescribed time food according to the scale prescribed for the
class to which he belongs unless he is permitted by rules to
receive the food from private sources.
(2) A convict sentenced to rigorous imprisonment who
refuses to work shall be given food on the non-Labouring scale,
irrespective of any other punishments that may be awarded.
(3) The State Government may at any time by order very
either temporarily or permanently subject to such conditions as
it may think fit, the scales laid down in this chapter.
... ... ...
83. Class of diet: - In the different classes of diet there
will be change only in the cereals, the other articles being the
same Cereals are as follows:-
... ... ...
Scale No.II Diet for Class I under trial prisoners
Rice----460 grams
Wheat-----115 grams
Dhall------140 on mutton days non-vegetarian get 85
grams dhall.
Tamarind -----15
Curry power -----22 on mutton days non-vegetarian get
15
grams.
Onion-----15
Oil------30
Salt----30
Vegetables ---- 230 on mutton days non vegetarians get
115 grams.
12
Mutton without bones---- 115 Twice in a week as per
Circular No. ADM /KPR/Diet/76, dated 6th February 1976.
Ghee-30.
Tea or Coffee ----15
Sugar-----7
Milk for Tea or Coffee---140
Garlic-----1
Fuel-----900
Milk for butter milk or curds---115
For garam masala ingredient on mutton days 10 paise per head.
On non Mutton days non-vegetarians to be given besan flour 60
grams jaggery 60 grams and oil 28 grams.
... ... ...
Scale No.III Scale of Diet for C class and Class II
under Trial Prisoners
Articles Labouring Non-Labouring
Grams Grams
Rice -- 170 170
Ragi or Jola -- 515 400
Dhal -- 170 170
Vegetable -- 170 170
Onions -- 15 15
Oil -- 10 10
Salt -- 30 30
Tamarind -- 8 8
Curry power -- 8 8
Milk -- 60 60
Mutton without bone once
a week 115 115
Jaggery -- 30 30
Garlic -- 1 1
Firewood -- 900 900
Mutton without bones to be issued one day in a week
On mutton days non-vegetarians are allowed 6 paisa per
head for garam masala. The vegetarian prisoners shall be
supplied with the following articles on the day. On which mutton
is issued to non-vegetarians.
13
1. Besan (Grain Flour) -- 60 grams
2. Jaggery -- 60grams
3. Oil -- 30grams
This should be issued in the form of ball after frying besan
with oil and mixing it with hot jaggery solution.
In the scale II and III vegetables shall be issued in the
form of potatoes one day in a week. Equal to half the scale of
vegetables compossion of curry power shall be in the following
proportion.
Chilies -- 450 grams
Coriander -- 360 grams
Turmeric -- 30
Cumin seed -- 30
Black papper -- 90
Poppy seeds -- 30grams
Vandian seed -- 30
Mustard -- 30
Karibeva leaves -- 30
Asafoetida -- 15 grams
The allowance of fuel provided in the scale is the
maximum. Consumption of fuel should be reduced to 790 grams
per prisoner in prisons where population is more than 200.
25. Per cent of vegetables shall be in form of greens and
other seasonal vegetables may be issued by rotation. The
quantity of dhal in table No. III shall be issued in the form of tur
dhall 50 percent the other 50 per cent in the form of grams and
pulses like green gram, Bengal gram, halasanda and ballar dhal
by rotation. Masur dhal or channangi dhal shall not be issued."
Rule 17 divides classes of prisoners. Under trial prisoners are
divided into two classes i.e., special and ordinary class. Convicted
prisoners are divided in 'A' class, 'B' class and 'C' class. Rule 81
deals with diet. The prisoners would receive diet according to the
14
scale. In terms of Rule 81 every prisoner shall be entitled to receive
daily, at the prescribed time food, according to the scale prescribed,
unless he is permitted by Rules to receive food from private
sources. The class of diet is dealt under Rule 83. Rule 83 provides
two scales for under trial prisoners i.e., Scale-II diet for Class-I
under trial prisoners and Scale-III diet for Class-II under trial
prisoners. Rules 84, 87 and 90 read as follows:
"84. Control of hospital diet: - The diet of a prisoner
in a hospital is entirely under the control of Medical
Officer who may at his discretion order extra provision
for any prisoner. Such an order shall, be duly entered in the
sick register and Medical Officer's Journal and there should be
an interval of 30 days for issue of any extra diet.
... ... ...
87. Daily inspection of food supplies: - The
Superintendent and the Medical Officer shall exercise utmost
vigilance in the preparation and distribution of food which
should be inspected by them before issue, Such Inspections
shall be done both in respect of raw and cooked food.
... ... ...
90. Hospital diet: - The following scale of dietary are
prescribed for patients in hospitals:-
Scale No. 1 --- Milk diet.
Scale No. 2 --- Milk and sage diet.
Scale No. 3 --- Milk and rice diet.
Scale No.4 --- Ordinary diet.
Scale No.1--------
Scale No.1--- Milk diet :
15
Bread -- 340
Milk -- 1,120
Sugar -- 60
Rice -- 60
Salt for conjee -- 4
Scale No. 2--Milk and Sago-----
Sago -- 116
Sugar -- 60
Milk -- 560
Rice -- 60
Salt for conjee -- 4
Scale No.3 Milk and rice diet----
Rice -- 460
Milk -- 1.120
Sugar -- 30
Scale No.4 ---- Ordinary diet------
Ordinary non-Labouring diet with full quantity of cereals in the form
of rice."
Rule 84 deals with control of hospital diet. The diet of a prisoner in
the hospital is entirely under the control of Medical Officer who may
at his discretion order extra provision for any prisoner. Rule 87
directs Superintendent and the Medical Officer to exercise utmost
vigilance in the preparation and distribution of food. Such inspection
is to be done in respect of raw and cooked food. Rule 90 provides
the scale for the diet prescribed to patients in hospitals.
16
9. For the purpose of functioning or maintaining diet or every
other regulatory measure, the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional
Services Manual is introduced as a compendium for jail authorities.
In the said manual clauses 283 and 284 read as follows:
"283. Cooking of food:
Civil prisoners are permitted to cook their own food at
such place as the Chief Superintendent or
Superintendent of prison may direct and to use their
own cooking and eating and drinking vessels.
284. Supply of the food and other articles from outside:
i. Civil prisoners may be permitted to purchase or
receive food, clothing and bedding, writing
materials, books, newspapers or other
necessaries from private sources subject to the
following restrictions;
a) Such articles shall be examined by the
concerned prison officer before being
introduced into the prison;
b) Food cooked outside the Prison shall be
allowed only to such prisoners have been
specially permitted by the Chief
Superintendent or Superintendent of Prison
to receive it having regard to their status
habits of life and social position after due
inspection;
ii. All purchases shall be made by or under the orders of
the Chief Superintendent or Superintendent of Prison;
iii. Food and the other articles shall be admitted only
between such hours as the Chief Superintendent or
Superintendent of Prison may prescribe;
iv. The Chief Superintendent or Superintendent of Prison
may refuse to allow to purchase or receive anything
17
which he considers to be un necessary, unsuitable or
unduly luxurious. "
Clause 283 permits civil prisoners to cook their own food at such
place as the prison authority may direct including use of their own
cooking and eating and drinking vessels. Clause 284 deals with
supply of food and other articles from outside. Food cooked outside
the prison is to be allowed to such civil prisoners who have been
specifically permitted having regard to their status, habits of life
and social position after due inspection. Clauses 318, 321, 322,
323, 332 to 345 read as follows:
"318. Scale of Diet;
i. Scales of diet admissible to various categories of
prisoners are given in Karnataka Prison Rules 1974,
subject to the modifications by the Government from time
to time.
ii. An average man requires approximately 2,000 to 2,400
calories per day. A person who does heavy work requires
not less than 2,800 calories per day;
iii. Convict night watchman shall receive the same diet scale
as of convicts of their class.
.... .... ....
321. Power to sanction change in diet;
No change in the prescribed diet scales of various
categories of prisoners shall be made without the sanction
of Government. But the diet of individual prisoner may be
modified on the recommendation of the Medical Officer.
18
322. Extra diet;
i. Extra diet or modified diet may be issued by the
Medical Officer at his/her discretion on medical
grounds. Such extra diet or modified diet prescribed
to prisoners shall be entered in the sick register and
an order to this effect shall also be made by the
Medical Officer in his/her journal.
ii. Extra diet or modified diet issued to prisoners on
Medical grounds shall not be ordered beyond a
period of 30 days at a time;
iii. No reduction or alteration in the prescribed diet and
scales shall be made except under special circumstances.
If, on the recommendation of the Medical Officer,
the Chief Superintendent or Superintendent of
Prison considers the prescribed diet to be
unsuitable or insufficient for a prisoner for reasons
of his health or his peculiar mode of living, he may
order, in writing, a special diet, or add extra
calories in the diet of such a prisoner.
323. Food ration;
i. Every prisoner shall have three meals a day according to
the scales prescribed by the Government from time to
time,
ii. A light meal (Breakfast) in the morning before the hour of
work between 7:15 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
iii. A mid day meal in afternoon between 11:00 a.m. to
11:30 a.m.;
iv. An evening meal before prisoners are locked up for the
night between 5.15 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.
324. Instruction for ingredients;
19
... ... ...
325. Cleaning, storage and issue of food items;
... ... ...
326. Food to be cooked in the main kitchen;
... ... ...
327. Cooks;
... ... ...
328. Selection of cooks;
... ... ...
329. Duties of Cook;
... ... ...
330. Distribution and service of food;
... ... ...
332. Diet Chart;
i. The diet chart of infants and children age between 0-6
months, 6-12 months, 1-3 years and 3-6 years shall be
provided as per existing diet chart, subject to the
modifications from the Government from time to time.
ii. Additional diet chart shall be provided for all pregnant and
lactating women prisoners as per existing diet chart,
subject to the modifications from the Government from
time to time.
iii. The diet chart of different types of breakfast from
Monday to Sunday for all prisoners shall be
provided as per existing diet chart, subject to the
modifications from the Government from time to
time.
iv. All the prisoners shall be provided early morning
breakfast with Coffee or Tea as per existing diet
chart, subject to the modifications from the
Government from time to time.
v. The diet chart of mid-day meals and evening meals
for labour and non-labouring adult prisoners of
respective Ragi, Wheat, Rice and Jower diet shall be
provided as per existing diet chart, subject to the
20
modifications from the Government from time to
time.
vi. All non-vegetarian prisoners shall be provided male
sheep boneless mutton meals and chicken weekly
once in every first Friday of the month is mutton
and second week of Friday is chicken and similarly
third week of Friday mutton, fourth week of Friday
is chicken and cycle will continue as per existing
diet chart, subject to the modifications from the
Government from time to time.
vii. The coastal districts prisons of Uttar Kannada,
Dakshin Kannada and Udupi, prisoners are provided
with every first Friday of the month is mutton and
second week of Friday is Fish and similarly third
week of Friday mutton, fourth week of Friday is fish
and cycle will continue as per existing diet chart,
subject to the modifications from the Government
from time to time.
viii. The vegetarian prisoners shall provide with Sweets
as per required special ingredients as per existing
diet chart, subject to the modifications from the
Government from time to time.
ix. All the prisoners shall provide with boiled egg for
non-vegetarians or Banana for vegetarians once in
a week on every Tuesday during evening meals as
per existing diet chart, subject to the modifications
from the Government from time to time.
x. All the prisoners shall be provided special feeding
for special days (Festivals) as per existing special
feeding diet chart, subject to the modifications from
the Government from time to time.
xi. Boiled water may be provided for prisoners on the
recommendation of Prison medical officer/visiting
medical officer of the District hospital;
21
xii. Class-A and Class-B prisoners diet will be given as per
the Karnataka Prison Rules 1974; subject to the
modifications from the Government from time to time.
333. Fuel Consumption Chart;
... ... ...
334. Milk and butter milk;
i. Milk at 60 ml. is to be issued to each prisoner daily. For
this purpose milk should be converted into curds and
butter milk prepared after adding water in the proportion
of 1:3 and distributed to the prisoners at 200 ml. each at
the time of morning or evening meals;
ii. Special care shall be taken with articles such as milk that
can easily be adulterated or stolen. Fresh milk shall be
used wherever it can be obtained in preference to toned
milk. Milk shall be frequently tested to ensure that it is
pure. If the specific gravity of the milk supplied is below
1,025, the milk should not be accepted;
iii. Milk shall be stored in properly cleaned vessels and in
well-ventilated place. Milk shall be issued to prisoners on
special/medical diet only after boiling. Boiling should be
done in the hospital enclosure under the supervision of a
responsible officer who shall be responsible for its proper
usage from the time it is obtained till its final distribution;
iv. In preparing curds no water should be mixed with the
milk before boiling.
335. Daily inspection of food;
The Chief Superintendent or Superintendent of
Prison and Medical Officer shall exercise utmost
vigilance in the supervision of the food supplies and
all articles issued for consumption shall be inspected
daily by the Medical Officer or in his absence by his
medical subordinates. The inspecting officer shall
especially see that the vegetables issued are of good
quality. He shall bring to the notice of the Chief
Superintendent/Superintendent of prison any
defects in quality detected during such inspections;
22
336. Inspection of cooked food;
It is highly important that the food is properly
cooked and that it reaches the prisoners in
prescribed quantities. Once a week, when the food is
cooked and is ready for being served, it shall be
inspected without prior notice and its quality and
weight shall be checked by the Chief
Superintendent/Superintendent of prison and the
Medical Officer. They shall record the result of their
inspection in their journal.
337. Fasting Days;
... ... ...
338. Hospital diet;
Prisoners shall be provided with hospital diet on the
advice of medical officer as and when required as per
prescribed in Karnataka Prison Rules 1974, subject
to the modifications from the Government from time
to time.
339. All cooked food should be kept covered until it is
distributed;
... ... ...
340. Complaint about food;
Any complaint regarding food shall be enquired into
on the spot by the concerned prison officer. He shall
decide whether the complaint is well founded or not
and then take necessary action. Every complaint
regarding food shall be reported to the Chief
Superintendent/ Superintendent of prison. If the
complaint is valid and is due to the fault of any
prison official/staff, the Chief Superintendent or
Superintendent of prison shall take such action as he
deems fit and shall record his orders. Any prisoner
making false or malicious complaints shall be
punished;
341. Disposal of complaint by prisoner;
If any complaint is made by a prisoner regarding the
quantity, quality, and preparation of food, it shall be
at once inquired by the in-charge officer of the
23
kitchen and made note of in his report book. If the
complaint relates to the quantity of food received,
the ration shall at once be weighed in front of the
prisoner making such complaint.
342. Requirements of pregnant and nursing women;
... ... ...
343. Power to sanction change in diet;
... ... ...
344. Control of hospital diet;
The control of diet of a prisoner in hospital shall be
the responsibility of the Medical Officer and he may
order such extras, as he considers necessary, while
doing so he shall also keep in mind the costs
involved which should not be excessive.
345. Food from Outside;
Food, Clothing, bedding, writing materials, books,
newspaper and others necessaries from outside the
Prison shall be regulated as per the section 30, 31
and 32 of the Karnataka Prison Act 1963."
The clauses afore-quoted deal with dietary consumption of
prisoners. Clause 321 states that the diet sanctioned as per the
scales of various categories of prisoners can be modified for an
individual prisoner on the recommendation of the Medical Officer.
Clause 322 permits extra diet or modified diet by the Medical
Officer at his discretion on medical grounds. Such diet or modified
diet prescribed to prisoners shall be entered in a sick register and
an order thereof shall be made by the Medical Officer. Clauses 335
and 336 provide for the inspection of the food supplies, cooked food
24
and other articles issued for consumption by the prisoners by the
Medical Officer and the Chief Superintendent/Superintendent of
prison. Clauses 340 and 341 provide for a mechanism to deal with
complaints from prisoners regarding the food served to them in the
prison. Every such complaint is required to be reported to the Chief
Superintendent/Superintendent of Prison who shall then take the
necessary actions as required and a note of such complaints is to be
made in the report book. Clause 345 deals with providing food,
clothing, bedding and other necessities from outside the prison,
subject to the regulations under Sections 30, 31 and 32 of the Act.
Chapter 26 deals with women prisoners. Clauses 433, 459, 460,
461, 462 and 474 read as follows:
"CHAPTER - 26
Women Prisoners
...... ...... ......
433. Statutory provision;
i. Under Section 26 of The Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963, in the
prisons confining women as well as men prisoners, women
prisoners shall be confined in a separate building or separate
enclosure of the same building so as to prevent any
connection with men prisoners;
ii. Under section 26(3) of The Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963,
unconvinced criminal women prisoners shall be kept
separated from convicted women prisoners.
...... ...... ......
459. Sending of cooked food to the women enclosure;
Cooked food shall be brought to the women enclosure by convict
25
cooks accompanied by a prison staff and placed outside the
enclosure gate from where it shall be taken inside by the women
prison staff or women prisoners.
460. Diet;
i. Management of kitchen or cooking food on caste or religious
basis should be totally banned in prisons for women;
ii. Adequate and nutritious diet should be given to nursing
women and to children accompanying women prisoners;
iii. Food articles should be of a good quality;
iv. Pregnant and nursing women prisoners should be prescribed
a special diet;
v. Women prisoners should get special diet on festivals and
national days, as may be specified by the government from
time to time;
vi. Medical Officer should ensure that food is cooked
under hygienic conditions and is nutritious;
vii. Some women staff should be given special training in
management of diet and kitchen and such trained staff
should supervise the kitchens and cooking in prisons for
women;
viii. Chief Superintendent or Superintendent of Prison or
senior officer, must supervise every aspect of the
prison diet system, that is issue of rations,
management of kitchen and distribution of food;
ix. There should be a separate kitchen for women prisoners if
necessary;
x. Women prisoners should not be allowed to have their own
mini kitchens inside the prison barracks;
xi. Clean drinking water should be supplied to prisoners and it
should be tested periodically.
461. Woman Prisoner to receive diet according to scale;
Every women prisoner shall be entitled to receive
every day food at prescribed times and according to
the scale laid down.
462. Special or extra diet on medical grounds;
i. Where the woman medical officer, for reasons of
health, considers the prescribed diet to be unsuitable
or insufficient for a women prisoner or her child, she
may order in writing a special diet or extra diet, for a
26
specific period of time. Special consideration shall be
given in this regard to pregnant/nursing prisoners;
ii. Rules relating to diet of prisoners, those on specific medical
advice for expectant and nursing mother or and infants and
children, shall be scrupulously observed.
...... ...... ......
474. Medical Facilities;
Women prisoners suffering from mental disorders, anxiety,
drug addiction or sex perversion should get proper medical
treatment and psychotherapy."
Clauses 460 to 462 deal with the diet to be served to women
prisoners. Clause 461 states that such diet should be provided to
women prisoners according to the scale and Clause 462 provides for
extra diet for women prisoners on medical grounds. Chapter 38
deals with under trial prisoners. Clauses 711, 712 and 713, 728 and
730 of Chapter 38 which deals with under trial prisoners are
germane to be noticed. They read as follows:
"CHAPTER - 38
Under trial Prisoners
711. Statutory Provision;
Under trial prisoners (UTPs) shall be separated from
convicted prisoners.
712. Classification of Under Trial prisoners;
... ... ...
713. Admission:
... ... ...
iv. If an under trial prisoner has not been in the prison
previously, it is the duty of the police or the military
27
escort officer to see that the under trial prisoner is given
food before he is taken to the prison, if he is likely to
arrive there too late for the prison meal. If the police or
military escort reports that the under trial prisoner has
not been supplied with food, prison authorities should
make necessary arrangements for the issue of food to
him. In case the under trial prisoner is admitted after the
prison meals have been served, or after lock-up, food
stuff like parched rice, parched gram, groundnuts, prison
meals if available etc., should be issued to him as per
prescribed scale; being escorted;
... ... ...
728. Clothing and Bedding;
i. Under trial prisoners other than those for murder, shall be
permitted to retain their own clothing, bedding, foot wear
and eating and drinking vessels like plates, spoons, cups
and religious emblems.
ii. But all the money, jewellery and other articles shall be
taken possession of by the in-charge officer who shall
endorse a list of the same in the under-trial register. The
list shall be signed by the prisoner and signed by the
Chief Superintendent or Superintendent of Prison.
iii. The Papers and documents etc., which helps the prisoner
in his defense, may be left with him.
iv. Private articles bearing marks or symbols of political
affiliations and Khaki Uniforms shall not be allowed to be
kept or used by under trial prisoners;
v. The Prison clothing will be as prescribed rules;
vi. Where under trial prisoners are inadequately clad or are
unable to obtain clothing and bedding from outside,
suitable clothing and bedding different from the Prison
clothing and bedding shall be provided by the Chief
Superintendent or Superintendent of Prison. They can
also supplement at their expenses the clothing and
bedding supplied by the prison authorities;
... ... ...
28
730. Prison Food;
Under trial prisoners who are unable to supply
themselves of who are not supplied by their
relatives or friends, with food shall receive prison
rations and it shall be cooked in the central kitchen
only as per the scales laid down."
Clause 730 states that under trial prisoners who are unable to
supply themselves with food on their own or from relatives or
friends shall receive rations and such food should be cooked in the
central kitchen as per the scales laid down. Chapter-44 deals with
medical administration. Clauses 828, 830, 831, 837 to 840 read as
follows:
"CHAPTER - 44
Medical Administration
828. Statutory Provision;
i. Under Section 12 of The Karnataka Prisons Act,
1963, subject to the Control of the Chief
Superintendent/Superintendent of Prison, the
Medical Officer shall have charge of the sanitary
and health administration of the Prison.
ii. As per Section 36 of The Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963,
provides for arrangements for the sick prisoners to see
the medical officer.
iii. As per Section 38 of The Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963, in
every prison a hospital or proper place for reception of
sick prisoners shall be provided.
iv. Section 37 of The Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963,
requires that all directions by the Medical Officer
29
shall be recorded and the in-charge officer to make
an entry of their compliance or otherwise.
... ... ...
830. Examination of prisoners complaining of illness;
i. Every prisoner complaining of illness, or appearing to be
ill, shall be sent to the prison hospital for immediate
examination and further treatment by the Chief Medical
Officer (CMO) or Medical Officer, in his absence, by the
Medical subordinate;
ii. On the advice of the CMO or Medical Officer, the Chief
Superintendent or Superintendent of Prison may transfer
any sick prisoner for further treatment to the nearest
public or private hospital where the patient could be
properly treated for further treatment.
831. Medical treatment of sick prisoners;
Every prisoner suffering from any active disease shall be
brought under medical treatment, either as an out-patient
or an in-door patient, and his name shall be recorded in
the prescribed in-patient or out-patient register.
... ... ...
837. Diet of prisoner in Hospital;
The diet of prisoners in hospital shall be entirely
under the control of the Chief Medical Officer or
Medical Officer who may either keep the prisoner on
the ordinary prison diet, or may place him on one of
the regular hospital diets, or may order any
modifications of the prison or hospital diet, or may
prescribe extra diet he may think necessary,
according to the scales of diet prescribed, if any,
under the rules.
838. Indent for hospital diet;
An indent showing the number of hospital diet and
extras required, shall be sent not later than by 9 a.m.
every day to the Officer-in charge of ration and care
shall be taken that diet and extras reach the
prisoners promptly. Emergent indents, in cases of
30
urgency, may be sent at any hour of the day. This
shall be generally avoided except in cases of extreme
urgency.
839. Preparation of hospital diets;
Hospital diets requiring special preparation shall be
cooked in the hospital kitchen if required with the
permission of Chief Superintendent or
Superintendent of Prison, and the Medical Officer
shall examine the diet frequently and satisfy him by
weighing that the full quantities of the prescribed
articles are present, and are well cooked.
840. Precaution regarding milk;
Special care shall be taken with articles such as milk that
can easily be adulterated or stolen. Fresh milk shall be
used, wherever it can be obtained, in preference to tinned
milk. Milk shall be frequently tested to ensure that it is
pure. If the specific gravity of the milk supplied is below
1,025 the milk should not be accepted."
Clauses 837, 838 and 839 provide for the diet of prisoners in
hospitals which shall be under the control of the Medical Officer or
Chief Medical Officer. The afore-quoted is the statutory landscape of
the entitlement of an under trial prisoner to get food including
home food and food as per the prescribed medical diets, albeit, in
certain circumstances. The aforesaid provisions are applicable to
both the under trial prisoners and the prison authorities and must
be strictly followed.
31
10. As observed hereinabove, Sections 31 and 32 of the 1894
Act are pari-materia to Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. In light of the
statutory landscape as discussed hereinabove, it becomes apposite
to refer to the judicial pronouncements on the issue of providing
home food to prisoners.
10.1. The Apex Court in the case of L.MURUGANANTHAM v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU1, while discussing the rights of disabled
prisoners observes as follows:
.... .... ....
22. While it is evident that the appellant did not receive
certain medical and dietary facilities appropriate to his condition
during incarceration, the records indicate that he remained in
the prison hospital throughout and was provided with some
special amenities recognising his disability. The absence of
specific provisions, such as protein-rich food or
specialised medical interventions appears to stem from
institutional limitations within the prison system rather
than from any deliberate neglect or malice on the part of
the prison authorities. Hence, these shortcomings do not
amount, per se, to a violation of human rights
attributable to the jail authorities.
23. The appellant specifically contended that he was not
provided with adequate protein-rich food, such as eggs, chicken
and nuts, on a daily basis. While persons with disabilities
constitute a particularly vulnerable class and are entitled
to reasonable accommodations under domestic law and
international conventions, the mere non-supply of
1
(2025) 10 SCC 401
32
preferred or costly food items cannot ipso facto be
treated as a violation of fundamental rights. The right to
life under Article 21 of the Constitution undoubtedly
extends to all prisoners, including those with disabilities.
However, this does not confer a right to demand
personalised or luxurious food choices. The State's
obligation is to ensure that every inmate, including those
with disabilities, receives adequate, nutritious, and
medically appropriate food, subject to medical
certification.
24. Prisons are correctional institutions--not extensions
of civil society's comforts. The non-supply of non-essential
or indulgent items does not amount to a constitutional or
human rights violation unless it results in demonstrable
harm to health or dignity. Considering the nature of the
appellant's disability (assessed at 80%), the progressive
deterioration of his health during custody, and the ongoing
treatment he requires, the High Court was justified in enhancing
the compensation from Rs 1,00,000 to Rs 5,00,000. We find this
amount to be fair, just, and reasonable in the facts and
circumstances of the case, and therefore, see no reason to
interfere with the same."
The Apex Court holds that in the absence of specific provision such
as protein rich food or specialised medical interventions within the
prison system are due to institutional limitations within the prison
system and not from any deliberate neglect or malice on the part of
the prison authorities and this would not become per se a violation
of human rights attributable to the jail authorities. Non-supply of
non-essential or indulgent items does not amount to a
constitutional or human rights violation, unless it results in
33
demonstrable harm to health or dignity. Further, the only obligation
of the State is to ensure that every inmate, including those with
disabilities, receives adequate, nutritious, and medically appropriate
food, subject to medical certification.
10.2. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ABDUL
KAREEMLAL TELGI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA2 has held as
follows:
".... .... ....
18. On careful reading of the above averments made by
the petitioner himself in his said application, which is written by
him only, it could be seen that he is not suffering from any
health problem inside the prison by reason of not getting either
"homely food" from any source or "home food" from his home.
Besides this, the Trial Court has observed in its impugned order
that the provisions of Section 30 of the Prisons Act do not
provide for supply of food from outside the prison to a convicted
prisoner. The Trial Court has extracted in its impugned order
Section 30 of the Prisons Act. It reads as under:
"30. Maintenance of certain prisoners from
private sources.--A civil prisoner or an unconvicted
criminal prisoner shall be permitted to maintain himself
and to purchase or receive from private sources at
proper hours food, clothing, bedding or writing
materials, books, newspapers or other necessaries,
subject to examination and to such regulations as may
be approved by the Inspector General".
19. Referring to the above provisions, Sri Shankarappa,
the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-accused strongly
2
2009 SCC OnLine Kar.492
34
contended that the words 'unconvicted prisoner' cannot be held
to mean the person who is detained in the prison for facing his
trial though he is convicted by a Court, other than the Trial
Court, in a different case, and therefore, the view taken by the
Trial Court that the petitioner-accused is not entitled to the
service of food from his home is erroneous. He further
submitted that though the petitioner has been convicted in other
cases, the fact remains that he is still 'under trial prisoner in
connection with SC No. 9 of 2001' in which case he is being tried
by the Trial Court and therefore his detention in connection with
the said case cannot be held to be as that of a 'convicted
prisoner'.
20. Per contra, the learned Senior Special Public
Prosecutor representing the respondent-CBI strongly contended
that the words 'unconvicted prisoner' clearly indicate that the
prisoner should not have been convicted in any case, by any
Court, and therefore, since the revision petitioner-accused has
been convicted for various offences by different Courts in the
States of Karnataka and Maharashtra, he cannot be termed as
'unconvicted prisoner' so as to get the benefit of provisions of
the Section 30 of the Prisons Act.
21. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner-
accused has been convicted for various offences under IPC and
other enactments by the Special Court at Pune and also the
Special Court at Bangalore. It is also not in dispute that the
presence of this petitioner has been secured in SC No. 9 of 2001
by issuing body warrant against him as he was detained in
Central Jail at Yerawada, by reason of his conviction by the
Special Court at Pune, in Special Case No. 2 of 2003. This being
so, I am of the considered opinion that the detention of this
revision petitioner-accused for the purpose of trial in the said
sessions case, cannot be termed as that of an 'unconvicted
prisoner' ??? to extend him the benefit of Section 30 of the
Prisons Act. Therefore, I hold that the Trial Court did not
commit any error in recording its findings that the
revision petitioner-accused cannot be termed as
'unconvicted prisoner' so as to seek the benefit of Section
30 of the Prisons Act. Lastly the learned Counsel for the
revision petitioner strongly contended that the words
'unconvicted prisoner' is not defined in any dictionary and
therefore it should be understood to mean 'under trial
35
prisoner' in connection with SC No. 9 of 2001 in which he
is facing trial. This contention cannot be accepted for the
reason that, as observed by me supra, though he is still
facing trial in the said sessions case, in view of his
conviction by the Special Court at Pune and also by the
Special Court at Bangalore, he lost the character of an under-
trial prisoner."
The co-ordinate Bench holds that an under trial prisoner who was
previously convicted in another crime and is serving sentence for
the said crime cannot seek the benefit of home food under Section
30 of the Act.
10.3. A little earlier to the afore-quoted judgment, the High
Court of Bombay in ASGAR YUSUF MUKADAM v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA3 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
29. It is to be remembered that, as rightly submitted by
the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the cardinal principles
of criminal jurisprudence is that a person accused of an offence
is deemed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. The provision
of law, as they stand comprised, under Section 167 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, therefore, discloses implicit power in
favour of the Magistrates and the Courts before whom the
accused is produced for remand or continuation of detention of
the accused in custody, to order the facility of home food on
being requested for by such accused and on being satisfied
about the need for grant of such facility. Undoubtedly, the
respondents would be entitled to take appropriate steps
to ensure that the drugs, messages, weapons, etc. are
not transported inside the jail under the guise of
supplying home food to the under-trials, and, in case, any
such mischief is brought to the notice of the Court,
nothing would prevent the Court or the Magistrate either
to refuse such facility or even to recall the order already
3
2004 SCC OnLine Bom.1221
36
passed granting such facility, albeit, after hearing the
concerned accused and in extreme urgency, even ex
parte subject to confirmation after hearing the accused.
30. The view that we are taking in the matter and
bearing in mind the practice which is followed by the
Courts below in the matter of grant of facility of home
food to the under-trial prisoners whenever asked for and
reasons to be recorded, the contention that the power to
order facility of home food was exercised by the Courts
below in terms of the unamended Sections 31 and 32 is
to be held as totally devoid of substance. Those
provisions do not deal with the powers of the Magistrate
or the trial Courts. Those are the powers which are given
to the Jail Administrative Authorities, and similar is a
situation in relation to the amended provisions of law.
The power to order home food vests in the Magistrate or
the trial Court under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the same is not controlled by virtue of
Sections 31 and 32 of the Prisons Act, 1894. In this view
of the matter, it is not necessary to deal with the issue of
vires of the amended Sections 31 and 32 of the said Act
sought to be raised by the petitioner. Suffice to observe
that the petitioners are entitled to move before the
concerned trial Court, and if such application is filed, the
concerned Court should pass an appropriate order in that
regard considering the facts and circumstances of the
case."
In the afore-quoted judgment the High Court of Bombay, observes
that the power to order home food vests in the Magistrate or the
trial Court under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. and the same is not
controlled by virtue of Sections 31 and 32 of the 1894 Act.
37
10.4. Again, the High court of Bombay in STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA v. VIKRAMSINH DATTUSINH CHAUHAN4 has
held as follows:
".... .... ....
7. The point argued about the authority to permit such
home food is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Principal Seat of this Court in Asgar Yusuf
Mukadam v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 Cri LJ 4312 wherein in
paras 21, 23, 27 & 28 it is held as under:
21. ...... The food is necessary for the
survival of human being, and being so, the
Magistrate who is required to get himself satisfied
about the existence of adequate grounds for
continuation of detention of the accused in
custody is obviously empowered to grant the
facility of home food to the under-trial while he is
in custody, albeit which could be subject to
conditions and bearing in mind the facts and
circumstances of each case.
23. It is not only the power of the Magistrate and
the Court but it should be their endeavour to ascertain
through the executing agency the availability of basic
needs to the person to be detained in the custody. The
same is implicit in the power to order detention and it
would include passing of an appropriate order in relation
to such basic needs to the under-trials detained in jail,
as and when occasion arises. Undoubtedly, the order
has to be a speaking order disclosing the grounds
for ordering the facility in relation to the basic
needs otherwise than in the manner provided in
the jail by its authorities. Being so, whenever an
application is filed by an under-trial prisoner for
grant of facility for home food, the Magistrate will
have power to pass an appropriate order on such
application after hearing the authorities and giving
reasons for grant of such facility to such person.
This power is implicit in the power to order
detention or continuation of detention of the
4
2017 SCC OnLine Bom.9017
38
accused in custody either at the time of
investigation or on filing of the charge sheet on
conclusion of the investigation and till the disposal
of the trial.
27. It is to be remembered that, as rightly
submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners,
the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence is that a
person accused of an offence is deemed to be innocent
until he is proved guilty. The provision of law, as they
stand comprised, under Section 167 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, therefore, discloses implicit power in
favour of the Magistrates and the Courts before whom
the accused is produced for remand or continuation of
detention of the accused in custody, to order the facility
of home food on being requested for by such accused
and on being satisfied about the need for grant of such
facility. Undoubtedly, the respondents would be entitled
to take appropriate steps to ensure that the drugs,
messages, weapons, etc. are not transported inside the
jail under the guise of supplying home food to the
under-trials, and, in case, any such mischief is brought
to the notice of the Court, nothing would prevent the
Court or the Magistrate either to defuse such facility or
even to recall the order already passed granting such
facility, albeit, after hearing the concerned accused and
in extreme urgency, even ex parte subject to
confirmation after hearing the accused.
28. ....... The power to order home food vests in
the Magistrate or the trial Court under Section 167 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same is not
controlled by virtue of Sections 31 and 32 of the Prisons
Act, 1894. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary
to deal with the issue of vires of the amended Sections
31 and 32 of the said Act sought to be raised by the
petitioner. Suffice to observe that the petitioners are
entitled to move before the concerned trial Court, and if
such application is filed, the concerned Court should
pass an appropriate order in that regard considering the
facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Thus, the Sessions Judge had every power to
permit home food to the respondent in appropriate cases.
He has referred to the medical evidence and was satisfied about
necessity to grant such permission. In the writ jurisdiction, it
39
will not be proper to consider the merits and demerits of the
findings in this regard. The petition, therefore, deserves to be
dismissed in limine and is accordingly dismissed."
In the afore-quoted case, in the order granting permission for home
food, the magistrate accords such permission only upon satisfaction
of such necessity after referring to the medical evidence submitted
before the Court. Therefore, the High Court of Bombay upholds the
order of the magistrate noting that in writ jurisdiction, the High
Court cannot consider the merits and demerits of such orders.
10.5. The High Court of Gujarat, considering the concerned
Prison Act of the State as well as the 1894 Act in SURESH
JUGALKISHORE v. SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISONS5,
has held as follows:
".... .... ....
6. The Prisons Act applies to all prisoners including under-
trial prisoners, i.e. a criminal prisoner who is committed to jail
custody under the orders of the Court and the provisions of the
Prisons Act and Rules made thereunder are applicable to them
and they are subject to the routine fixed for all the prisoners
including timings. It cannot be said that prescription of such
time for under-trial prisoners is in any way unreasonable or
violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The under-trial
prisoners are entitled to have the facility of private tiffins
and the food from private sources. However, these meals
5
1990 SCC OnLine Guj.150
40
have to be taken according to the rules and regulations of
the prison in which the prisoner is committed and,
therefore, there is no substance in the contention that
fixation of such time schedule and routine for taking
meals is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution."
The High Court of Gujarat in the afore-quoted judgment observes
that while under-trial prisoners are entitled to food from private
sources, they are still subject to the rules and regulations of the
prison in which the prisoner is committed.
10.6. If the statutory landscape and the judicial landscape is
considered what would unmistakably emerge is, under trial
prisoners do have a right to get home food but such rights are
subject to the rules and regulations as applicable. The Apex Court
in MURUGANANTHAM holds that only if demonstrable harm to
health and dignity is shown, supply of non-essential items can be
permitted to the prisoners. The shortcomings are not caused due to
the neglect or malice on the part of the prison authorities but are
instead are due to institutional limitations within the prison systems
and the same would not be a violation of human rights attributable
to the jail authorities.
41
11. With this being the statute and the judgments of the Apex
Court and that of several High Courts including this Court, it
becomes necessary to notice the observations of the Apex Court
qua these respondents. The Apex Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA
v. DARSHAN6, has held as follows:
"My esteemed brother Justice R. Mahadevan has just
pronounced a very erudite judgment. All that I can say in one
sentence is that the judgment penned by my esteemed brother
is ineffable. The judgment conveys a very strong message that
whoever the accused may be, howsoever big or small the
accused may be, he or she is not above the law. This
judgment contains a very strong message that the justice
delivery system at any level should ensure at any cost that the
Rule of Law is maintained. No man is above the law and no
man is below it; nor de we ask any man's permission
when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is
demanded as a right; not asked a favor. The need of the
hour is to maintain the rule of law at all times.
2. The day we come to know that the accused persons
are provided with some special or five-star treatment within the
jail premises, the first step in the process will be to place the jail
superintendent under suspension including all other officials
involved in such misconduct."
(Emphasis supplied in each instance)
The Apex Court holds that these respondents should not be shown
any differential or special treatment. In the teeth of the aforesaid
observations and the judgments rendered it becomes necessary to
6
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702
42
notice the order impugned. On a particular day i.e., 29-12-2025 the
concerned Court passes the following order:
"Case called out. A1, A2, A6, A7, A11, A12 and A14
produced from JC through VC.
A3, A5, A8, A9, A10, A13, A16 present.
A4, A15 and A17 absent. EP filed. Heard and allowed.
Adv for A-1 filed memo with orders copy.
Ld. counsel for A3 filed application u/s.311 of Cr.PC
seeking for recall of PW1 for further cross examination.
Ld. SPP orally objected.
Heard. By considering the reasons assigned in the
application same is allowed and PW1 is recalled.
PW-1 further cross examined by learned counsel for A-3
and partly cross examined by learned counsel for A-2. Ex.D-8
and Ex.D-9 marked through PW-1.
Learned counsel for A-1 and A-11 and A-12
submitted that, jail authorities not providing proper food
to them and prays for allow them to food from their
respective home.
As per the jail manual, jail authority bound to allow
the home food to un convicted prison. Hence, jail
authority is hereby directed to allow the home food to A-
1, A-11 and A-12.
The learned counsel for A-2, 11 and A-12 submitted that,
there is a delay to approach to Central Jail, Parappana
Agrahara, Bengaluru for discussion about case. Hence, prays for
issue direction to jail authority to allow them to discussion for
tomorrow's cross examination of prosecution witnesses.
43
Considering oral submission jail authorities is hereby
directed to allow the learned counsel for A-2, 11 and 12 for
discussion of case with A-2, 11 and 12.
Office is directed to issue intimation to jail
authority.
Further cross of PW-1 by A-2 and further cross of PW-2
by 30.12.2025.
A1, A2, A6, A7, A11, A12 and A14 remanded to J.C till
30.12.2025."
The concerned Court notices the complaint of the respondents -
accused Nos.1, 11 and 12 of not providing proper food and their
prayer for allowing them home food. It is allowed. The State then
seeks a clarification to the order. The clarification sought is as
follows:
"REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE ORDER DATED
30-12-2025
--
1. This Hon'ble Court by way of order dated 30.12.2025
has directed the undersigned to allow home food to be provided
to the Accused Nos. 1, 11 and 12. As per Ch.XII of Karnataka
Prison Rules, 1974 and Ch.XXI of the Karnataka Prisons &
Correctional Services Manual, 2021 the diet requirements for
prison inmates are complied with. As per the said Manual, every
prisoner in the prison is entitled to receive food as per the scale
of diet applicable to various categories of prisoners. Further
every prisoner will be provided 3-meals a day according to the
scale prescribed by the Government from time to time.
2. At Central Prison, Bengaluru a separate full-fledged
kitchen is existing for cooking to all the prisoners in the prison.
Further it is hereby submitted that everyday food is prepared for
44
an average of 4800 prisoners 3 times (2 meals and one
breakfast) a day. The food is being cooked in the hygienic
atmosphere, advanced cooking equipment i.e., steam cooking
equipment's. Every prisoner is served food at the appropriate
timings as per prescribed in the prison manual. Every day prison
head and medical officer of the prison inspects food being
distributed to the prisoners.
3. There is a separate diet chart which has been adopted
in the prison manual as per the Government order No. HD 126
PRA 2014 dated 13-10-2014 and the same is attached herewith.
The said diet chart is elaborately prepared and fixed in
consultation with CFTRI, Mysuru, Director, University of
Agricultural Sciences, Nutrition Department, and Medical
Superintendent, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Victoria
Hospital, Bengaluru. The said diet has also has a provision of
various types of breakfast from Monday to Sunday for all
prisoners. Non-Vegetarian Meal for Non-Vegetarian prisoners
i.e., Mutton on every first, third and fifth Friday of the month,
Chicken on the second and fourth Friday of the month. The
Vegetarian prisoners are provided sweets as per the required
special ingredients as per existing diet chart. All prisoners are
provided with boiled egg for non-vegetarian prisoners and
banana for vegetarian prisoners once in a week on every
Tuesday. Special food on special days (festivals) are also
provided as per the scale prescribed.
4. It is further submitted that the food articles which are
required for preparation of food items are procured through E-
procurement through authorised vendors and samples are being
lab tested by the scrutinising committee during food
procurement in the prison. The quality of the materials are
verified by the authorities and ensured that the same is in
compliance with the guidelines.
5. The prisoners who observe fasting are given sweet
potatoes, ground nut seeds, jaggery, plantains in lieu of daily
food. The Chief Superintendent of Prison and Medical Officer
exercise utmost vigilance in the supervision of the food supplies
and all articles issued for consumption and inspection on daily
basis. Cooked food is being inspected without prior notice and
its quality and weight will be checked by the Chief
Superintendent of Prison and Chief Medical Officer.
45
6. Apart from the said practice, Hon'ble Judges of
jurisdictional Courts, Senior Officers of the Department/ Board
of Visitors visit prison on regular intervals. During their visits,
inspection of the kitchen and ascertaining of food quality and
quantity will be part of their inspection.
7. It is further submitted that this Hon'ble Court vide
order dated 30-12-2025 has permitted the A1, A11 and A12 to
receive food from their respective home. In view of the said
order, permitting the said accused to receive home cooked food,
would provoke similar demand by other prisoners, which will
result in chaos and problem of scrutiny. In the case of home
diet, it would be very difficult for the prison authorities to check
the quality and safety of the said food which is being supplied to
the accused. Further, to carry out such procedure, the same
would require manpower, and other necessary testing
equipment.
8. It is further submitted that one of the accused in the
above case, A2 had approached the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka by filing W.P.No.1822 of 2024 to allow private
sourced food/Home food. However, the same was withdrawn by
order dated 29-07-2024. In addition to that, challenging the
order dated 25-07-2024 passed by XXIV Additional CJM at
Bengaluru, Accused No.2 had filed W.P.No.20514 of 2024 and
the same was withdrawn on 09-10-2025. Copy of the said
judgments are annexed.
9. It is further submitted that, as per Karnataka Prison
Act, 1963
"Section 30: A civil prisoner or an unconvicted
criminal prisoner shall be permitted to maintain himself,
and to purchase, or receive from private sources at
proper hours, food, clothing, bedding or writing
materials, books, newspaper or other necessaries,
subject to examination and to such regulations as may
be approved by the Inspector-General."
Due to that, outside food to the A1, A11 and A12 has not
yet been provided. It is further submitted that the order dated
46
30-12-2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court may be clarified in
view of the above submissions and keeping in mind the safety
and security of the prisoners, in the interest of justice."
On the clarification sought, the concerned Court passes the
impugned order on 12-01-2026 which reads as follows:
"REASONS
POINT No.1
7. The learned SPP urged that as per Sec 30 of the Karnataka
Prisons Act, 1963. these accused have to approached to
Inspector General of Prison for permission to proper hours food,
clothing etc. On considering requisition of accused he may be
approved it. Further, urged that as per circular Dtd 16.10.2014,
every day Jail Authority providing various food for breakfast,
lunch, evening meals. The Jail Authority is providing proper and
healthy food to more then 4000 prisons. In case, home food
permitted to these accused it is violation of provisions of law.
Hence, prays for allow the requisition as sought for.
8. As against this, learned counsel for accused No.1 urged that,
accused No.1 is suffering from various diseases due to
unsuitable food as providing by Jail Authority. As per videos
telecast by media disclosed that, other prisons are enjoying
luxurious facilities in Central Prison, Bengaluru. The officers of
Central Prison are deliberately disobeying the order passed by
this Court. Hence, prays for reject the requisition filed by Jail
Authority.
9. The learned counsel for accused No.11 and 12 urged that,
one person obtained information from Centre Prison, Bengaluru
under RIT, it is revealed that, Jail Authority providing poor food
and ill-treatment to inmates. Further urged that, Jail Authority
providing luxurious food to other inmates. In support of this
submission he has relied various names of inmates. The officers
are intentionally harassing these accused persons including
accused No.2. These accused are in Judicial Custody of this
Court. This Court has empowered to orders to provide to home
food to accused persons. To buttress this contention, learned
47
counsel for accused No.11 and 12 has relied on Judgment of
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay rendered in State of
Maharastra Vs Vikramsinh Dattusinh Chauhan (2017 SCC Inline
Bom 9017).
10. The Superintendent of Central Jail Bengaluru relied
specifically mentioned Sec 30 of Karnataka Prisons Act in his
requisition. Therefore, this Court has relied Sec 30 and Sec 31
of The Karnataka Prisons Act, 1973.
CHAPTER VI
FOOD, CLOTHING AND BEDDING OF CIVIL
AND UNCONVICTED CRIMINAL PRISONERS
Sec.30; Maintenance of certain prisoners
from private sources.
A civil prisoner or an unconvicted criminal
prisoner shall be permitted to maintain himself and to
purchase or receive from private sources at proper
hours food, clothing, bedding or writing materials,
books, newspapers or other necessaries. subject to
examination and to such regulations as may be
approved by the Inspector-General.
Sec.31; Restrictions on transfer of food and
clothing between certain prisoners;
No part of any food, clothing, bedding or other
necessaries belonging to any civil or unconvicted
criminal prisoner shall be given, hired or sold to any
other prisoner, and any prisoner transgressing the
provisions of this section shall lose the privilege of
purchasing food or receiving it from private sources, for
such time as the Superintendent thinks proper.
11. In view of Judgment relied by learned counsel for accused
No.11 and 12 again this Court has relied on Sec 31 and Sec 32
of Prison Act, 1894.
CHAPTER VI
FOOD, CLOTHING AND BEDDING OF CIVIL
AND
UNCONVICTED CRIMINAL PRISONERS
48
Sec.31; Maintenance of certain prisoners
from private sources,
A civil prisoner or an unconvicted criminal
prisoner shall be permitted to maintain himself, and to
purchase, or receive from private sources at proper
hours, food, clothing, bedding or other necessaries, but
subject to examination and to such rules as may
be approved by the Inspector General.
Sec.32; Restriction on transfer of food and
clothing between certain prisoners.;
No part of any food, clothing, bedding or other
necessaries belonging to any civil or unconvicted
criminal prisoner shall be given, hired or sold to any
other prisoner and any prisoner transgressing the
provisions of this Section shall lose the privilege of
purchasing food or receiving It from private sources, for
such time as the Superintendent thinks proper.
12. On perusal and combined reading of aforesaid
provisions of two enactment no charges in words used by
legislatures. They have changed name of Act. The last
sentence of Sec 30 of The karnataka Prisoners Act and
Sec 30 of The Prisoners Act, a jail inmates shall seek
permission from Inspector General of Prisoner [Sec 2(f)
of Act] to purchase or receive from private source at
proper hours food and other things after his approval. At
this stage, important question arise that, this Court being
Trial Court of this case, has no Jurisdiction direct to Jail
Authority to allow the inmates get home food.
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to
these accused with specific directions no special or luxurious
treatment to these accused persons. Already this Court held
that in view of aforesaid directions of their lordship it dose not
mean that, these accused persons are not entitled get basic and
proper facilities available under law as guaranteed under Art 21
of Constitution. Therefore, this Court has relied Hon'ble High
Court of Judicature at Bombay (DB) has law settled their
lordship in following case;
49
2004 Crl.L.J 4312
Asgar Yusuf Mukadam Vs State of Maharashtra
12. While dealing with the issue as regards the
right to home food to the under trial prisoners, one
cannot lose the sight of the well established law that
even the convicts do not lose all their fundamental rights
which the citizens are otherwise entitled to, excepting of
course those which cannot be possibly indulged on
account of the fact of incarceration. Obviously, on
account of Imprisonment, right to move freely or right
to practice a profession which is otherwise available
under Article 19(1)(b) or 19(1)(g) could be curtailed.
Nevertheless, various other fundamental rights including
the right to freedom of expression or to read and write
subject to the limitations imposed on account of
imprisonment, would continue to be enjoyed by the
prisoners. The most Important right to life guaranteed
under Article 21 which includes des prohibition against
deprivation of such right except according to the
procedure established by law, is always available able to
such prisoners. Reference to some of the decisions in
that regard by the Apex Court would not be out of place.
13. In Sher Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab., the Apex
Court had ruled that the horizons of Article 21 are ever
widening and the final word on its conspectus shall
never have been said. It was further reminded that so
long as life lasts, so long shall it be the duty and
endeavour of the Court to give to the provisions of the
Constitution, a meaning which will prevent human
suffering and degradation.
14. In T.V. Vatheeswaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu. It
was ruled that the Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not
mutually exclusive and they sustain. strengthen and
nourish each other and they are available to prisoners as
well as free men and the prison walls do not keep out
fundamental rights. With specific reference to Article 21
and the bar provided thereunder for deprivation of life
and liberty, except in accordance with the procedure
established by law, it was clearly ruled that such
procedure must be just, fair and reasonable and
referring to the expression "just, fair and reasonable
procedure". It was held that it implies a right to free
legal services where the prisoner cannot avail them. It
50
implies a right to speedy trial. and above all, it implies
humane conditions of detention, preventive or punitive.
It was ruled that "procedure established by law" does
not end with the pronouncement of sentence; it includes
the carrying out dealing with a case wherein a capital
punishment was imposed and the point sought to be
raised before the Apex Court in the petition under Article
32 related to the claim for reformation in jail due to long
lapse of time since the passing of sentence of death on
the prisoner. and on that count, the commutation of
capital punishment to the imprisonment for life.
Nevertheless, the ruling, in no uncertain terms, makes
it clear that the expression "procedure established by
law" under Article 21 of the Constitution would not
permit the Court merely to pass an order of remand or
to send the person to the custody or prison, but it
envisages appropriate steps to ensure that such order
would be given effect to without offending the right to
life of the person ordered to be imprisoned or detained.
In other words, when the person is sent to Jail, the
Courts are not only empowered but it should be their
endeavour to ensure, through the executing agency,
prevalence of humane condition at the place of
detention or imprisonment.
15. Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Sunil Batra
v. Delhi Administration and Ors,, held that Article 21
guarantees protection of life and personal liberty and
though couched in negative language, it confers
fundamental right to life and personal liberty. Relying
upon earlier decisions in the matter of Kharak Singh v.
State of U.P., and D. Bhuvan Mohan Patnail and Ors. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.,, it was held that the
following explanation by Field, J. in Munn v. Illinois.
(1877) 94 US 113, as regards the scope of the words,
"life and liberty" in Vth and XIVth Amendments of U.S.
Constitution are to some extent precurser of Article 21:
"By the term 'life' as here used something more is
meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition
against its deprivation extends to all these limits
and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision
equally prohibits the mutilation of the body or
amputation of an arm or leg or the putting out of
an eye or the destruction of any other organ of the
body through which the soul communicates with
the outer world ..... by the term liberty, as used in
the provision something more is meant than mere
51
freedom from physical retraint or the bonds of a
prison."
It was further ruled that "personal liberty as used in
Article 21 has been held to be a compendious term to
include within itself all the varieties of rights which go to
make personal liberties of the man other than those
dealt with in Clause (d) of Article 19(1). The burden to
justify the curtailment thereof must squarely rest on the
State."
16. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, it was held
that ".....no personal harm, whether by way of
punishment without affording a preventive, or in special
cases, post facto remedy before an impartial,
competent, available agency." It was also held that "the
Courts have to ma do with interpretation and carve on
wood and sculpt on stone ready at hand and not wait for
far away marble architecture."
17. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna
Reddy and Ors,, reported in AIR 2000 SC 2083, it was
held that a prisoner, be he a convict or under-trial or a
detenu, does not cease to be a human being, and even
lodged in the jail, he continues to enjoy all his
fundamental rights including the right to life guaranteed
to him under the Constitution. It was further held that,
on being convicted of crime and deprived of their liberty
in accordance with the procedure established by law.
prisoners still retain the residue of constitutional rights,
It was also held that though the present Act may classify
the inmates of jail as convicts, under-trials and civil
prisoners, none of the categories of the prisoners lose
their fundamental rights on being placed inside the
prison and the restrictions placed on their rights to
movement are the result of their conviction or
involvement in crime.
21......... The food is necessary for the survival of
human being, and being so, the Magistrate who is
required to get himself satisfied about the existence of
adequate grounds for continuation of detention of the
accused in custody is obviously empowered to grant the
facility of home food to the under-trial while he is in
custody, albeit which could be subject to conditions and
bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of each
case.
52
22. The need for home food may arise for various
reasons. A person may not be able to digest the food
other than the one prepared in accordance with his
health conditions or for other medical grounds. It is not
to say that the food served in prisons is of sub-standard
quality or that it is not the good food. Infact, the
petitioners have not been able to make out any case to
that effect. Besides, if the food is of sub-standard quality
then it would be of the same quality for all inmates of
the jail including the convicts.
23. It is not only the power of the Magistrate and the
Court but it should be their endeavour to ascertain
through the executing agency the availability of basic
needs to the person to be detained in the custody. The
same is implicit in the power to order detention and it
would include passing of an appropriate order in relation
to such basic needs to the under-trials detained in jail,
as and when occasion arises. Undoubtedly, the order
has to be a speaking order disclosing the grounds for
ordering the facility in relation to the basic needs
otherwise than in the manner provided in the jail by its
authorities. Being so, whenever an application is filed by
an under-trial prisoner for grant of facility for home
food, the Magistrate will have power to pass an
appropriate order on such application after hearing the
authorities and giving reasons for grant of such facility
to such person.
This power is implicit in the power to order detention or
continuation of detention of the accused in custody
either at the time of Investigation or on filing of the
charge sheet on conclusion of the investigation and till
the disposal of the trial.
24. The Apex Court in Neelabhati Bahera v. State of
Orissa, reported in 1993 AIR SCW 2366. had ruled that:
"It is axiomatic that convicts, prisoners or
under-trials are not denuded of their
fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is
only such restrictions, as are permitted by law,
which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the
fundamental rightly by such persons. It is an
obligation of the State to ensure that there is
no infringement of the indefeasible rights of a
citizen to life, except in accordance with law,
53
while the citizen is in its custody. The precious
right guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India cannot be denied to
convicts, undertrials or other prisoners in
custody. except according to procedure
established by law."
25. In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh. referring
to Article 21 of the Constitution held that the
requirements of a decent and civilized life would include
the right to food, water and decent environment, and
ruled that:-
"In any organised society, right to live as a
human being is not ensured by meeting only
the animal needs of man. It is secured only
when he is assured of all facilities to develop
himself and is freed from restrictions which
inhibit his growth. All human rights are
designed to achieve this object. Right to live
guaranteed in any civilized society, implies the
right to food. water, decent environment,
education, medical care and shelter. These are
basic human rights known to any civilized
society."
27. ...............the cardinal principles of criminal
jurisprudence is that a person accused of an offence is
deemed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. The
provision of law, as they stand comprised, under Section
167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore,
discloses implicit power in favour of the Magistrates and
the Courts before whom the accused is produced for
remand or continuation of detention of the accused in
custody, to order the facility of home food on being
requested for by such accused and on being satisfied
about the need for grant of such facility. Undoubtedly,
the respondents would be entitled to take appropriate
steps to ensure that the drugs, messages, weapons, etc.
are not transported inside the jail under the guise of
supplying home food to the under-trials, and, in case,
any such mischief is brought to the notice of the Court,
nothing would prevent the Court or the Magistrate either
to defuse such facility or even to recall the order already
passed granting such facility, albeit, after hearing the
concerned accused and in extreme urgency, even ex
parte subject to confirmation after hearing the accused.
54
28. The view that we are taking in the matter and
bearing in mind the practice which is followed by the
Courts below in the matter of grant of facility of home
food to the under-trial prisoners whenever asked for and
reasons to be recorded, the contention that the power to
order facility of home food was exercised by the Courts
below in terms of the unamended Sections 31 and 32 is
to be held as totally devoid of substance. Those
provisions do not deal with the powers of the Magistrate
or the trial Courts. Those are the powers which are
given to the Jail Administrative Authorities, and similar
is a situation in relation to the amended provisions of
law. The power to order home food vests in the
Magistrate or the trial Court under Section 167 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and the same is not
controlled by virtue of Sections 31 and 32 of the Prisons
Act, 1894. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary
to deal with the issue of vires of the amended Sections
31 and 32 of the said Act sought to be raised by the
petitioner. Suffice to observe that the petitioners are
entitled to move before the concerned trial Court, and if
such application is field, the concerned Court should
pass an appropriate order in that regard considering the
facts and circumstances of the case.
14. Accused No.1, 11 and 12 and other four accused persons
are Judicial Custody means they are in this Court custody. As
per law settled by their lordship, this Court has got jurisdiction
to direction to Jail Authority allow home food to accused
whenever required for. The learned counsel for accused No.11
and 12 urged that, Jail authority giving unnecessary harassment
of accused of this case who are in judicial custody. We are living
in modern civilized society. No one treated in inhuman manner,
accused of this case still innocent and unconvicted accused.
15. As noticed by this Court and urged by learned counsel for
accused No 11 and 12, the superintendent of police and chief
superintendent Central Prison, Bengaluru stated last sentence of
his requisition stated that "keeping in mind the safety and
security of the prisoners". Last one month back Kannada
media/news channels telecast several videos of Central Jail,
Bengaluru. Wherein, inmates of central prison of Bengaluru
were having drugs, non-veg meals and liquor with doing dance.
Itself shows the irresponsibility of concerned officers of Central
Prison and their responsibility towards safety and security of the
55
prisoners. The officers of Central Prison first understand their
responsibility, then used proper words in requisition while
submitting before Court of law. While passing order on
29.12.2025 this Court has not specified time for providing home
food to accused No.1, 11 and 12. Accordingly, point No.1
answered in the partly affirmative.
POINT No.2.
16. For going reasons, proceed to pass following :-
ORDERS
The requisition fled by the Superintendent of police and
chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru is hereby partly
allowed.
It is clarified that, the Jail Authority/Central Prison,
Bengaluru is hereby strictly directed to allow the accused
No.1, 11 and 12 to get home food once in week and other
circumstances as and when a Doctor advised including
other accused persons of this case who are in JC without
any clarification. In case any lapse found on the part of
concerned officers of Central Prisoner, Bengaluru, they
have to face its consequences."
The Court then directs the Superintendent of Central Prison to
strictly allow home food once in a week or in any other
circumstance as and when a Doctor advises so. This order of the
concerned court is then communicated to the jail authorities. The
communication reads as follows:
"To Date: 12-01-2026
The Superintendent of Jail,
Central Jail,
Parappana Agrahara,
Bengaluru,
56
Sir,
Sub: Intimation of order passed in S.C.No.1319 of 2024.
----
With reference to the above subject, as per the order
dated 12-01-2026, you are hereby strictly directed to allow the
accused No.1 - Pavithra Gowda, Accused No.11 - Nagaraju R
and Accused No.12 - Lakshman M to get home food once in
week and other circumstances as and when a doctor advised
including other accused persons of this case who are in JC
without any clarification. In case any lapse found on the part of
concerned officers of Central Prison, Bengaluru, you have to
face its consequence.
This is for your kind information and needful action.
By order of the Court,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar,
City Civil Court, Bengaluru."
While opining that home food can be granted on a request made by
an under trial prisoner, the request cannot be on vague assertions
or statements made in thin air. It has to be done in accordance with
the procedure prescribed under the Act, Rules and the Manual.
Under the Act, there is no bar on the supply of home food to under
trial prisoners, but such supply is subject to the examination and
rules. The Rules and the Manual as well do not bar the supply of
home food to under trial prisoners but they are subject to the
provisions of the Act. Any extra or special diets for health or
medical reasons can be provided to the under trial prisoner only on
57
the advice of the concerned Medical Officer. The Grant of home
cooked food should not precede medical advice but medical advice
should precede grant of home food
12. The respondents failed to address their grievances or
complaints regarding the food served to them in the prison, before
the concerned authorities or the Medical Officer as provided under
the Rules and the Manual, but have instead directly submitted an
application before the concerned Court seeking for home food.
Added, the respondents were also not examined by the Medical
Officer for any medical conditions. This is contrary to law, as for the
asking if these respondents are granted home food, it cannot be
said that any other under trial can be denied such benefit. This, if
permitted, it will result in chaos.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents have produced
certain documents to demonstrate that in another case arising from
Crime No.621 of 2024, the concerned trial Court grants home food
to the accused therein - Prajwal Revenna and H.D. Revanna, merely
58
for the asking. The order that is passed granting home cooked food
to Prajwal Revanna and H.D.Revanna is as follows:
"Order
Advocate for the accused filed an application U/Sec.55A
read with sec. 167 of Cr.P.C. praying for a direction to the Jail
authority to permit the accused no.2 to have home cooked food.
In support of his application he has relied on the decision of
Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of State of Maharastra
through Superintendent of jail, law through Vs. Vikramsinh
Dattusinh Chauhan, reported in 2017 SCC online Bom 9017.
Learned Special PP submitted oral objections to
application.
Pursuant to direction from this court the jail authority
submitted a report along with report of chief medical officer
central prison hospital and also food menu chart.
Heard, perused the application and the Records.
It is stated by the advocate for the accused the
accused is suffering from lower back pain as his discs are
plugged. As per medical advise and Ayurvedic treatment
he was taking the food diet. But recently due to this case
he skipped the advise and taking food as provided by the
authorities. As such he again suffering from back ache
and diarrhea. As such the accused intended to go for the
food diet as prescribed by his doctor. The report of CMO,
Central Prison Hospital also goes to show the this
accused his suffering from pain abdomen,
gastrointestinal disease, vomiting and loose motion.
Accordingly, he also advised bland diet, pre and pro
biotics with rich protein content diet. Further he also
advised to provide said food either by the prison
authorities are if not suggested for home cooked food.
On considering the submissions made by the
defence counsel and also the report of CMO, it is evident
that the accused is suffering from said health issues. It is
59
also evident from the report of CMO that the accused as
been advised to be provided with bland diet, pre and pro
biotics with rich protein content diet.
In the light of the above this court as called for the details
of food that is being provided to this accused. Accordingly, the
jail authority submitted a food menu chart. On perusal the said
chart it appears that the nature of foods that are provided for
the breakfast, lunch and dinner may not satisfy the king of diet
advised by the CMO. The advise of CMO is authorized Under rule
322(iii) of the Karnataka jail manual-2021. Further as per rule
322(iii) the jail authority is also empower to decide on such
special diet or extra diet based on the report and
recommendation of medical officer.
Therefore, this court deems it proper to give direction to
the jail authority to provide the foods as advised by the CMO in
his report dated 06.07.2024 like bland diet, pre and pro biotics
with rich protein content diet.
OR
The jail authority may permit the accused to get
home cooked food for period of 30 days and it may be
continued thereafter also upon the medical advise.
In the event of jail authority allowing the accused to get
home cooked food, it shall take all necessary precautions.
With the above, directions the application filed by the
accused is disposed of.
Office is directed to send copy of this order to the jail
authority with a direction to submit compliance report.
Call on 22.07.2024."
Chief Medical Officer of the Central Prison Hospital had examined
and found that both of them suffer from pain abdomen,
gastrointestinal disease, vomiting and loose motion and only on the
60
medical advice they were permitted home cooked food for a brief
period.
14. The learned counsel for the respondents further
contended that on a under trial prisoner ₹85/- is spent in a day.
The said amount is spent not for one meal but for morning coffee,
breakfast, lunch and dinner. This is the information of the Public
Information Officer of the Central Prison, Bengaluru. It reads as
follows:
"To Date: 26-08-2024
T.Narasimha Murthy,
No.18, 4th Street,
O.M. Road, Ulsoor,
Bengaluru-560 008
Mob: 9980627609
Sub: Information under the Right to Information Act,
2005.
Ref: Your RTI Application, dated 29-07-2024.
*****
With regard to the above subject and cited reference, it is
informed that, this institution received your RTI application on
30-07-2024, wherein you requested the information pertaining
to the daily food expenses allocated for under-trial prisoners.
Further, as per the current purchasing tender rate
in the Central Prison, Bangalore approximately cost of
₹85/- per prisoner per day is bearing the expense of
morning tea/coffee, breakfast, lunch and dinner.
61
First Appellate Authority: The Director General, Prisons
and Correctional Services, Karnataka State, Bangalore-560 009.
Sd/-
Public Information Officer
& Superintendent,
Central Prison, Bangalore."
(Emphasis added in each instance)
The learned counsel for the respondents has also placed on record
several instances of violation of human rights in not providing basic
facilities and appropriate diet.
15. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor maintains
that the diet in the Central Prison has now been graded 4 star and
therefore, the diet is adequate, protein rich or otherwise and also
submits that ₹85/- is enough for a prisoner, as cooking is done in
bulk and the Government gets the provision in bulk. While these
submissions are submissions, the reality should not be different. In
₹85/- it is ununderstandable as to how a protein rich diet is given to
an under trial prisoner or any convict for all the four times. One can
imagine the quality of food for the said amount. Therefore, the jail
authorities must now digitally publish the menu that they are
62
providing to the prisoners in the prison, which would be within the
knowledge of the prisoners and the prison authorities shall also
maintain a complaint box with regard to the food in particular, as to
what is in the menu is given or otherwise, including the quality of
food if not already maintained as provided under the law.
16. Violation of human rights pervades not only to a person
outside the prison but even to a person inside the prison. It is
human rights anywhere. Therefore, the neglect or malice on the
part of jail authorities should not lead to food being grossly under
quality. The Medical Officer, the Chief Medical Officer or the
dietician who prescribes the diet to the inmates in the prison shall,
at intermittent intervals, inspect the quality of food and affix the
signature on a report of such quality, failing which plethora of
litigations may emerge on the quality of food. Four-star rating
should not mean that it is only grading and especially when the
food being served is under the grading. Therefore, these steps be
taken by the jail authorities and be reported to this Court.
63
17. Insofar as the case at hand is concerned, while the order
is rendered unsustainable, it is open to the respondents to seek
providing of home food strictly in consonance with the law, which
can be granted bearing in mind the observations of the Apex Court
qua these very respondents, which would mean that, without any
rhyme or reason, without any examination by the Doctor and
without any advisory from the concerned medical officer or the
official dietician, home cooked food cannot be granted. This is in
the peculiar facts, as the Apex Court observes that no special
treatment of any kind should be rendered to any prisoner
particularly to the accused respondents, in the case between the
same parties
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
• The protection of human dignity does not cease at the gates
of the prison. The prisoners though deprived of liberty, are
entitled to basic necessities, a caveat, in accordance with law.
• Home food for under trial prisoners is not prohibited, but it
can be granted only in accordance with the procedure
64
prescribed under the Prisons Act, Rules and Manual noted
hereinabove.
• Medical advice must precede the grant of home food.
Permission cannot be granted merely on request or as a
matter of indulgence in tune with the observations made in
the course of the order
• The trial Court's order is legally unsustainable, as it directed
grant of home cooked food without prior medical examination
or recommendation.
• Granting of such concessions indiscriminately would create
chaos within the prison management, as other inmates would
also be entitled to similar treatment.
• The trial Courts are hereinafter directed to ensure that home
food is not provided to the under trial prisoners for the mere
asking and only provided if required after a detailed medical
examination by the concerned Medical Officer. Before passing
the order granting or rejecting home food, the trial Courts
shall examine if the avenues or remedies provided under the
Prisons Act, Rules and Manual, as discussed hereinabove, are
exhausted by the prisoner. It is only in the event, such
remedies are exhausted; there is a contravention of the
procedure discussed hereinabove by the prison authorities
65
and only if there is an absolute necessity for home food, can
the trial Courts after conducting the required medical
examination, entertain an application for providing home food
to the prisoners. Further, such orders can only be passed by
the Trial Courts after hearing the concerned Prison
Authorities.
• It is a matter of concern regarding the adequacy and quality
of prison food noting that Rs.85/- per day for 4 meals raises
legitimate questions about the nutritional sufficiency.
• To safeguard the prisoners rights and ensure transparency, I
deem it appropriate to direct digital publication of the
prisoners menu at conspicuous places; establishment of a
complaint mechanism enabling prisoners to report deficiencies
in food quality inter alia ; the medical officer or a designated
dietician shall conduct periodic inspection of the food
prepared for inmates and record their certification regarding
its quality, if not already provided under the law. The State
Government shall issue a circular towards the procedure for
the purpose of compliance with the directions.
• While setting aside the impugned order, liberty is to be
reserved to the petitioner to seek home food afresh, provided
it is in accordance with the procedure provided under the
Prison Rules and Manual quoted supra, as also bearing in
66
mind the observations of the Apex Court, in the case of the
1st respondent-accused No.1.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed. Interim order of any kind
operating shall stand dissolved.
SPONSORED
(ii) The order dated 12-01-2026 passed by the LVI
Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore in
S.C.No.1319 of 2024 stands quashed.
(iii) Liberty is reserved in the respondents to seek home
food, in the event of need, which shall be considered
strictly in consonance with the observations made in the
course of the order, particularly, the observations made
by the Apex Court.
67
(iv) Insofar as other corrective measures are concerned, the
State shall implement them within an outer limit of 3
months and report compliance to this Court.
(v) The Registry shall transmit a copy of this order to the
Secretary, Home affairs and the Director General of
Police for Prisons, for compliance with the directions.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ