'Protection Of Human Dignity Doesn't Cease At Prison Gate': Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines On Home-Cooked Food To Undertrials
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (March 4) laid down guidelines on providing home-cooked food to undertrials and prisoners observing that protection of human dignity does not cease at the gates of prison. The court passed the order while setting aside a trial court order which had permitted home-cooked food for actress Pavithra Gowda, Nagaraju R and Lakshman M–presently facing trial in...
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (March 4) laid down guidelines on providing home-cooked food to undertrials and prisoners observing that protection of human dignity does not cease at the gates of prison.
The court passed the order while setting aside a trial court order which had permitted home-cooked food for actress Pavithra Gowda, Nagaraju R and Lakshman M–presently facing trial in the Renukaswamy Murder case, after finding that before granting such permission, prior medical examination of the accused persons had not been conducted.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said:
"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 cooked food for undertrial prisoners is not prohibited but it can be granted only in accordance with prison rules and procedures noted herein above. Medical advice must preeced the grant of home cooked food. Permission cannot be granted merely on request or as a matter of indulgence. 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 in the prison management as other inmates would also be entitled to similar treatment"
The court also said that the adequacy and quality of prison food was a matter of concern after noting the amount spent on four meals per day for each inmate, observing that it raised questions of nutritional sufficiency.
"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 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 added.
The court further said:
"To safeguard prisoners rights and to ensure transparency I deem it appropriate to direct:
- Digital publication of prison menu at conspicuous places- Establisment of a complaint mechanism enabling prisoners to report deficiencies in food quality, in not in place already
- Medical officer or a designated dietician shall conduct periodic inspection of food prepared for inmates and record certification with regard to its quality intermittently
- The State Government shall issue circular towards procedure for compliance with the directions"
The court set aside the trial court order while granting liberty to the petitioners to seek permission for home cooked food afresh, provided it is supported with medical advice and processed with applicable prison rules while bearing in mind the observations made by the apex court while cancelling bail granted to the accused.
While reserving its verdict last month the court had orally remarked that it will lay down guidelines on providing home-cooked food to undertrials and prisoners.
The State Government had 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.
Darshan and 16 others have been charged for offences punishable under Section 120B, (Conspiracy), 201 (destruction of evidence), 364 (Abduction/kidnapping), 302 (murder) and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were granted bail by the high court in December 2024, which was cancelled by the Supreme Court in August 2025.
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 high court in its order said that the trial court had 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 Prisons Act Act, Rules and the Manual.
The court said that 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 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 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," the high court said.
The State's petition was allowed and the trial court order was set aside.
Case title: STATE OF KARNATAKA v/s SMT. PAVITHRA GOWDA & Others
WP 1421/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 95