Supreme Court rules that denial of preferred or expensive food to inmates is not a violation of fundamental rights. States must ensure only nutritious and medically approved meals.
New Delhi: Today, on July 15, the Supreme Court of India has made it clear that prisoners, including those with disabilities, cannot claim the right to get their favourite or expensive food items while serving their sentence in jail. The Court stated that such a demand is not a violation of fundamental rights.
A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan delivered the verdict, explaining that while Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to all citizens, including prisoners, it does not mean that inmates can demand luxurious or personalised meals.
The Court observed,
“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 judges also emphasised that prisons are not meant to provide the same comforts as civil society but are correctional institutions designed for reform.
The Court said,
“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 Supreme Court gave this judgment while hearing an appeal by advocate L Muruganantham, who suffers from a rare condition known as Becker muscular dystrophy.
He was earlier awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation by the Madras High Court after he raised complaints regarding the lack of proper food and medical care during his time in prison. His imprisonment was linked to a land dispute involving his family.
Muruganantham argued that he was not given medically necessary and protein-rich food such as eggs, chicken, and nuts on a daily basis, which he required for his health condition.
While deciding the case, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the general condition of Indian prisons is lacking, especially in catering to the needs of persons with disabilities.
The bench said,
“The non-supply of non-essential or indulgent items does not amount to a constitutional or human rights violation unless it results in demonstrable harm to health or dignity,”
The Court stressed the need for reforms in prison systems and highlighted how facilities for disabled inmates are severely outdated and ineffective. It reminded the authorities of their duty to provide proper medical care and accessible facilities.
The bench added,
“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,”
The Court also pointed out that many state prison manuals are outdated and do not reflect the current understanding of disability rights and laws.
The judgment stated,
“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,”
In conclusion, the Court said that it is the responsibility of the State not just to treat prisoners with disabilities fairly but also to support their rehabilitation and re-entry into society.
“The State had a constitutional and moral obligation to uphold the rights of prisoners with disabilities and this includes not only ensuring non-discriminatory treatment but also enabling their effective rehabilitation and reintegration into society.”
This decision serves as an important reminder for prison authorities across the country to ensure that basic medical and nutritional needs are met for all inmates, especially those with disabilities, while also making it clear that the right to costly or preferred food is not guaranteed under the Constitution.
CASE TITLE:
L. MURUGANANTHAM v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS SLP (C) No. 1785 OF 2023
Click Here to Read More Reports On Prisoners
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
