The Karnataka High Court set aside a trial court order that allowed home-cooked meals for accused including Pavithra Gowda in the Renukaswamy murder case. The Court ruled that such permissions can only be granted after proper medical advice and strictly as per prison laws.
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside a trial court order that had allowed home-cooked food to be provided once a week to accused persons in the Renukaswamy murder case, including Pavithra Gowda. The decision came in the case where the High Court clarified that such permissions must strictly follow the procedure prescribed under prison laws.
The order was passed by Justice M Nagaprasanna, who observed that the trial court had granted the permission without properly following the legal provisions contained in the Prisons Act, the Karnataka Prisons Act, the Karnataka Prisons Rules and the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Services Manual.
ALSO READ: Bengaluru Court Rejects Actress Pavithra Gowda’s Bail Plea in Renukaswamy Murder Case
The High Court said that allowing undertrial prisoners to receive home food inside prison cannot be based on vague claims or casual requests. The Bench emphasised that any such benefit must be granted only after following the legal framework laid down under prison laws.
The Court observed,
“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 Court observed.
During the hearing, the State government argued that allowing home food could create practical difficulties for prison authorities. According to the State, checking the quality and safety of food brought from outside could lead to administrative problems and confusion within prisons. The High Court accepted this concern and said that granting such concessions freely could disturb prison management because other inmates may also demand similar treatment.
The Court noted,
“Home food for under trial prisoners is not prohibited, but it can be granted only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Prisons Act, Rules and Manual noted hereinabove,”
the Court said.
The Bench further directed trial courts across the State to ensure that prisoners first use the remedies and procedures available under prison laws before asking for special privileges such as home-cooked meals.
The Court clarified,
“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,”
the Bench said.
Apart from restricting indiscriminate permissions for home food, the High Court also issued directions to the State government to improve transparency and quality in prison food systems. The Court stressed that inmates must receive proper and safe meals while in custody.
The Court ordered,
“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,”
the Court ordered.
The State was represented by Additional Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha, while Special Public Prosecutor P Prasanna Kumar assisted the Court during the hearing. Advocate Sunil Kumar appeared for some of the respondents.
The case relates to the murder of 33-year-old auto driver Renukaswamy, whose body was found on June 9, 2024. According to the police investigation, Renukaswamy allegedly sent inappropriate messages to Pavithra Gowda, the partner of Kannada actor Darshan Thogudeepa.
The prosecution claims that Renukaswamy was kidnapped and taken to a workshop where he was brutally assaulted for several hours. Investigators allege that Darshan and several associates attacked him using sticks, pipes and a belt, which caused fatal injuries to his head and chest. It is also alleged that Darshan and Pavithra Gowda remained in constant contact during the incident.
The criminal case in the matter was registered at the Kamakshipalya Police Station. Both Darshan and Pavithra Gowda were arrested in June 2024.
Later, in December 2024, the Karnataka High Court granted bail to Pavithra Gowda, Darshan and five other accused persons. However, the Supreme Court of India cancelled their bail on August 14, 2025, following which they were taken back into custody. Subsequently, on September 3, 2025, the Bengaluru Sessions Court rejected a fresh bail application filed by Pavithra Gowda.
With this ruling, the High Court has made it clear that prison authorities and trial courts must strictly follow legal procedures before granting special privileges to prisoners, ensuring fairness, discipline and proper administration inside prisons.
Case Title:
The State of Karnataka v Pavithra Gowda & Ors,
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Renukaswamy Murder Case
