'Denial of preferred food to prisoners not rights violation,' says SC; flags disability gaps in jails

Time of India

5 days ago

Representative Image
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that not providing "preferred or costly food items" to prisoners, including those with disabilities, does not constitute a violation of fundamental rights.
Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan clarified that while Article 21 of the Constitution extends the right to life to all prisoners, it does not grant them the right to demand personalised or luxurious food choices, PTI reported.
The bench emphasised, "Mere non-supply of preferred or costly food items cannot ipso facto be treated as a violation of fundamental rights...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."
The court stated that prisons are correctional facilities rather than extensions of civil society's comforts.
Unless resulting in provable harm to health or dignity, the court noted that withholding non-essential or indulgent items does not violate constitutional or human rights.
"Prisons are often regarded as the 'tail-end' of the criminal justice system – historically designed for rigid discipline, harsh conditions, and minimal liberties.
While modern penological principles advocate rehabilitation over retribution, the current prison infrastructure and operational systems in India remain grossly inadequate – especially when it comes to meeting the needs of prisoners with disabilities," the verdict stated.
These observations arose from an appeal by advocate L Muruganantham, who suffers from Becker muscular dystrophy, challenging a Madras High Court order that awarded him Rs 5 lakh compensation.
His imprisonment stemmed from a land dispute between his family and another individual.
During his incarceration, he alleged inadequate medical care and insufficient protein-rich food, including eggs, chicken and nuts, on a daily basis.
The court acknowledged that while the respondent authorities may not be directly responsible for prison facility deficiencies, these issues highlight the urgent need for prison reforms, particularly regarding disability-sensitive infrastructure and protocols.
The court recognised the systematic neglect in prison infrastructure, especially concerning disabled prisoners' needs.
"Persons with disabilities must be provided healthcare equivalent to that available in the general community. This includes access to physiotherapy, speech therapy, psychiatric care, and assistive devices, such as wheelchairs, hearing aids, or crutches. Prison authorities are under a duty to coordinate with public healthcare systems to ensure uninterrupted care.
Logistical or financial limitations cannot be cited to justify a withdrawal of this obligation," it said.
The court found most state prison manuals "outdated" and "uninformed" regarding developments in disability law and rights-based discourse.
"They frequently conflate sensory or physical disabilities with mental illness or cognitive decline, thereby eroding the distinct legal right to reasonable accommodation. This conflation promotes harmful stereotypes and obstructs disabled inmates from claiming their lawful entitlements," it noted.
The court concluded that the state bears both constitutional and moral obligations to protect disabled prisoners' rights, ensuring non-discriminatory treatment and facilitating their rehabilitation and societal reintegration.