Supreme Court: Prisoners Have No Fundamental Right To Demand Personalised or Luxurious Food Items

Table of Contents

• Core holding
• Case background
• Disability-sensitive obligations and prison reforms
• What this means in practice
• Key quotes reflected in reports

The Supreme Court has clarified that while the right to life under Article 21 extends to all prisoners, including those with disabilities, it does not translate into a fundamental right to demand personalised, preferred, or costly food items in jail. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that the State’s constitutional obligation is to ensure adequate, nutritious, and medically appropriate food—subject to medical certification—not to provide indulgent or luxury dietary choices.

Core holding

• Mere non-supply of preferred or costly food items cannot, by itself, be treated as a violation of fundamental rights.
• Prisons are correctional institutions, not extensions of civil society’s comforts; withholding non-essential or indulgent items does not amount to a constitutional or human rights violation unless it causes demonstrable harm to health or dignity.
• The State must ensure every inmate, including those with disabilities, receives adequate, nutritious, and medically appropriate food, based on medical certification where required.

Case background

The ruling arose from an appeal by an advocate with a disability who alleged custodial torture and complained that the prison failed to provide daily protein-rich items like eggs, chicken, and nuts, as well as adequate medical care. The Tamil Nadu Human Rights Commission found the arrest illegal and awarded compensation; the Madras High Court enhanced compensation to ₹5 lakh, while finding no human rights violation attributable to the jail authorities—a view the Supreme Court upheld.

Disability-sensitive obligations and prison reforms

Even as it rejected a right to personalised or luxury foods, the Court underscored urgent prison reforms and disability-sensitive infrastructure, noting systemic neglect and outdated prison manuals that often conflate physical disabilities with mental illness. The Court emphasized that persons with disabilities in custody must receive healthcare equivalent to that available in the general community, including access to therapies and assistive devices, and that logistical or financial constraints do not justify withdrawing such care.

What this means in practice

• Adequate nutrition is mandatory; luxury menus are not. The baseline is nutritionally sufficient, medically appropriate diets, not tailored or expensive preferences.
• Medical certification matters. Special diets tied to verified medical needs fall within the State’s obligation; unverified preferences do not.
• Systemic reforms are needed. Authorities must modernize prison rules, ensure disability access, and coordinate with public healthcare systems to meet ongoing needs.

Key quotes reflected in reports

• “Mere non-supply of preferred or costly food items cannot ipso facto be treated as a violation of fundamental rights.”
• “Prisons are correctional institutions – not extensions of civil society’s comforts.”
• The State’s duty is to provide “adequate, nutritious, and medically appropriate” food, subject to medical certification.

In sum, the Supreme Court drew a firm line between constitutionally required, adequate nutrition and medical diets on the one hand, and discretionary, indulgent, or personalised food demands on the other, while simultaneously calling for disability-sensitive reform across India’s prisons.