/newsfirstprime/media/agency_attachments/2025/07/28/2025-07-28t111554609z-2025-07-23t100810984z-newsfirst_prime_640-siddesh-kumar-h-p-1-2025-07-23-15-38-10-2025-07-28-16-45-54.webp)
Follow Us
/newsfirstprime/media/media_files/2025/12/17/pavithra-gowda-darshan-case-bengaluru-2025-12-17-11-05-20.jpg)
Court sets aside lower court order allowing weekly home food, says medical advice mandatory; calls for diet review, digital grievance system and new government circular
In a significant development in the Renukaswamy murder case allegedly involving actor Darshan and his associates, the Karnataka High Court has set aside a lower court order that had allowed weekly “home food” for three accused persons lodged in jail.
The accused include Pavithra Gowda, Lakshman and Nagaraj. Earlier, the 57th CCH Court had permitted them to receive food from home once a week. Challenging this order, the State government filed a writ petition before the High Court.
Hearing the matter, a single-judge bench led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court cancelled the lower court’s decision.
During the hearing, the bench orally observed that home food for prisoners is not completely prohibited. However, it must be provided strictly according to prison rules. The court clarified that inmates cannot be granted home food merely on request. Such permission can be considered only if there is medical advice supporting the need. The judge further noted that if one prisoner is allowed home food without proper grounds, others in jail may make similar demands.
At the same time, the High Court expressed serious concern about the quality of food being served in state prisons. The bench remarked that a person’s human dignity should not end at the prison gates. The court pointed out that food worth ₹85 per day would not be sufficient to provide nutritious meals and said a review of food quality was necessary.
Responding to this, Additional State Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadish informed the court that the current expenditure on food per prisoner is ₹125 per day. Even so, the High Court insisted that the quality and nutritional value of prison meals must be re-examined.
The court directed that prison food should be periodically inspected by a dietitian, who must issue a quality certification. It also instructed the government to immediately establish a digital system to hear complaints and grievances of prisoners.
Finally, the bench directed the State government to issue a fresh circular incorporating all the High Court’s directions regarding prison administration and food standards.
