Supreme Court Ruling: Prisoners' Rights to Food Choices Not Absolute

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that prisoners, including those with disabilities, do not have the right to demand preferred or costly food items. This decision highlights the need for significant reforms in prison infrastructure and the treatment of disabled inmates. The court emphasized that while the right to life is guaranteed under the Constitution, it does not extend to luxurious food choices. The ruling arose from a case involving an advocate with a disability who claimed inadequate nutrition during his imprisonment. The court's observations call for urgent reforms to ensure that prisoners receive adequate healthcare and support, particularly those with disabilities.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jul 15, 2025, 19:31 IST

Supreme Court's Stance on Prisoner Rights

New Delhi: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court clarified that the absence of preferred or expensive food options for prisoners, including those with disabilities, does not infringe upon their fundamental rights.

A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan stated that while the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution applies to all inmates, it does not extend to the right to demand personalized or luxurious food.

The court emphasized that simply not providing preferred or costly food cannot be automatically deemed a violation of fundamental rights. The State is responsible for ensuring that all inmates, including disabled individuals, receive adequate, nutritious, and medically appropriate meals, as certified by medical professionals.

The justices described prisons as correctional facilities rather than extensions of societal comforts.

They noted that the lack of non-essential or indulgent food items does not constitute a breach of constitutional or human rights unless it leads to demonstrable harm to health or dignity.

Historically, prisons have been seen as the 'tail-end' of the criminal justice system, designed for strict discipline and minimal liberties. Although modern penal philosophies advocate for rehabilitation over punishment, the current prison infrastructure in India is severely lacking, particularly in addressing the needs of disabled inmates.

This ruling arose from an appeal by advocate L Muruganantham, who suffers from Becker muscular dystrophy, challenging a Madras High Court decision that awarded him Rs 5 lakh in compensation.

His imprisonment stemmed from a land dispute involving his family. He alleged that he did not receive sufficient protein-rich foods like eggs, chicken, and nuts during his time in custody.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that while the deficiencies in prison facilities may not be directly linked to the authorities, they underscore the urgent need for reforms, especially regarding disability-sensitive infrastructure and protocols.

The court recognized the systemic neglect of prison facilities, particularly concerning the needs of disabled prisoners.

It stated that individuals with disabilities should receive healthcare comparable to that available in the general community, including access to physiotherapy, speech therapy, psychiatric care, and assistive devices like wheelchairs and hearing aids. Prison authorities must collaborate with public healthcare systems to ensure continuous care, and logistical or financial constraints cannot excuse a failure to meet this obligation.

The court found that many state prison manuals are outdated and fail to reflect advancements in disability law and rights discourse.

These manuals often confuse sensory or physical disabilities with mental illness, undermining the legal right to reasonable accommodation and perpetuating harmful stereotypes that hinder disabled inmates from claiming their rights.

The Supreme Court asserted that the state has both a constitutional and moral duty to protect the rights of prisoners with disabilities, which includes ensuring non-discriminatory treatment and facilitating their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.