'Will Lay Down Something': Karnataka High Court Mulls Framing Guidelines On Providing Home-Cooked Food To Undertrials, Prisoners

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (February 3) orally remarked that it will lay down guidelines on providing home-cooked food to undertrials and prisoners, while hearing a plea against order providing this facility to actress Pavithra Gowda, Nagaraju R and Lakshman M–presently facing trial in the Renukaswamy Murder case.

The State Government has challenged a Sessions Court order dated 29-12-2025 as well as a clarificatory order dated 12-1-2026 which permitted the grant of home cooked food to accused 1(Gowda), 11(Nagaraju R) and 12 (Lakshman M).  On January 20 the high court had stayed the sessions court order. 

After hearing all the parties Justice M Nagaprasanna reserved verdict in the matter and orally said:

"We'll have to lay down something...we'll lay down some comprehensive guidelines...Heard, reserved,". 

During the hearing today, the State's counsel informed the Court that the petitioner had provided a bundle of documents claiming that the persons therein were being provided home cooked food. "Atleast in that bundle, there is not even a single case where we have given. Nobody we have given food," the counsel said. 

Meanwhile counsel for the petitioner said that the Supreme Court's observation (in its order cancelling bail given to actor Darshan and other accused) would be applicable across the country. 

At this stage the court orally said, "If Food is to be given, it is to be given in accordance with law, not at the whims and fancies of what orders the concerned court has passed...Based on judgment of apex court between the same parties...no special treatment even should be given".

For context the Supreme Court had while cancelling bail granted to Darshan as well as Gowda and five others, had warned the jail authorities against providing any special treatment to the actor over his celebrity status.

The court asked for the material based on which sessions court order had passed the order.  To this the petitioner's counsel said, "Giving home food is not barred".

The court thereafter remarked, "I am not saying it is barred. Giving special treatment to particular prisoners because of position is not the law. Giving food on doctor's advice and other things, owing to ailment, yes that is a consideration. Merely because somebody is a celebrity you can't...I am not saying that it cannot be given at all, but there is a procedure to be followed. Particularly in this case, the observation of Apex Court is no special treatment to be given..."

At this stage the petitioner's counsel said that the petitioners were not seeking special treatment but were only seeking home food. 

"We'll lay down guidelines on how it should be granted...Now if you have to provide this home food there is a procedure drawn, owing to certain ailment that ailment should be assessed by medical board. If medical board comes to conclusion that particular prisoner needs home food because of 1,2,3,4 ailments then jail authority shall grant," the court remarked. 

However the petitioners' counsel said that is not the procedure as per the manual. He said that the Jail Manual states that home food is permitted subject to approval of the concerned authority. To this the court questioned what if someone says that they want biryani.

It orally said: "If you say that it is unregulated, tomorrow it will lead to chaos. A prisoner who cannot afford something will not get anything. A prisoner who can afford will get all the home food from everywhere. There should be some need guideline. If there is no guideline I will lay down the guideline".  

On the circumstances in which such request can be granted the court orally said that suppose in instances of a festival, or owing to health conditions based on assessment by medical board of the prisoners condition the food can perhaps be given. 

To the court's query the State's counsel said that the nutrition of the jail food had been assessed by FSSAI, doctors, central food authorities who had recommended the diet and the food is also examined every year. 

Meanwhile the petitioner's counsel also argued that whenever concerned judges visit the jails, only on that day "quality food" is provided to the inmates. "Let this court may call for record from independent..." the counsel said. 

After hearing all the parties, the court reserved its verdict. 

Case title: STATE OF KARNATAKA v/s SMT. PAVITHRA GOWDA & Others

WP 1421/2026