The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday emphasized that every citizen or undertrial prisoner is entitled to a nutritious diet, and authorities cannot differentiate based on the prisoner’s socio-economic status or public profile.
This observation was made by a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna during the hearing of a petition filed by Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa.
The actor challenged a Magistrate court order that rejected his request for home-cooked food, bedding, and cutlery in prison.
Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi, representing the petitioner, cited a medical certificate indicating Thoogudeepa’s need for nutritional food.
“If he needs a special diet, if his health is deteriorating, the doctors will provide. It is not about Darshan or anyone else. Every citizen or undertrial prisoner will ask why anybody should be denied nutritious food. How can we make a distinction? Other undertrial prisoners are also citizens,” the court remarked.
“Requirements as per the doctor will be provided. Be it you or anyone else… Merely because a celebrity is in prison. You may be an accused/undertrial prisoner but there are scores of prisoners who may require a better diet,” it added.
Navadgi argued that the Magistrate court erred by considering Rule 728 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual, 2021, which he claimed is an executive instruction for proper conduct inside prisons and cannot contradict the Prison Act and Section 30 of the Act. This section allows for home-cooked food for undertrial prisoners, subject to approval from authorities.
However, the court clarified that while Section 30 prescribes the procedure, the regulation falls under the Prison Manual, which provides guidelines accepted as a statutory principle.
Navadgi also mentioned that a request had been made to the authorities to consider providing Thoogudeepa with home-cooked food and other amenities. The Special Public Prosecutor informed the court that two representations had been made to the authorities and requested two weeks for consideration and appropriate orders. Navadgi insisted that the representation should be considered objectively in consultation with the medical officer.
Subsequently, the court directed the respondents to consider the representation in accordance with the law and present it before the court on the next hearing date., i.e., 20th August. The high court noted that the issue needs resolution and will keep the matter pending until the authorities provide their decision.
