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

The Supreme Court today(July 15) observed that while the State has moral and constitutional obligations to ensure that prison facilities are as the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2016, the right to reasonable accommodation does not extend to creating an obligation on authorities to ensure personalised or costly food items to prisoners with disabilities.

It said that the inability of the prison authorities to provide preferred diets to prisoners with disabilities stems from institutional shortcomings and cannot be said to be a violation of human rights. 

"Prisons are correctional institutions – not extensions of civil society's comforts. 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."

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, while issuing guidelines for prisons across Tamil Nadu, observed:

"The appellant specifically contended that he was not provided with adequate protein-rich food, such as eggs, chicken and nuts, on a daily basis. While persons with disabilities constitute a particularly vulnerable class and are entitled to reasonable accommodations under domestic law and international conventions, the mere non-supply of preferred or costly food items cannot ipso facto be treated as a violation of fundamental rights. The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution undoubtedly extends to all prisoners, including those with disabilities. However, this does not confer a right to demand personalised or luxurious food choices. 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."

In this case, the petitioner, an advocate with disability, was arrested in connection with a civil dispute. He alleged custodial torture by the police officer during arrest and failure of the prison authorities to provide basic facilities such as a protein-rich diet, such as eggs, meat, chicken, nuts on a daily basis etc, and adequate medical treatment. 

When the petitioner was granted bail, he approached the Tamil Nadu Human Rights Commission seeking compensation for the violation of his human rights by the police officer and the prison authorities. The commission awarded him 1 lac compensation and directed disciplinary action against the police officer. It was held that the arrest was illegal. However, this complaint against prison authorities was dismissed as no human rights violation was attributable to them.

Against this, he filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court, which enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5,00,000. But it dismissed the complaint against the jail authorities, taking a similar view as was taken by the commission.

Upholding these views, the judgment authored by R Mahadevan observed that as against the petitioner's claim that he was not provided with protein-rich food or specialised medical intervention, it stems not from the deliberate neglect or malice on the part of the jail authorities but from institutional limitations within the prison system. Therefore, the court observed that the shortcomings do not amount to, per se, violation of human rights attributable to the jail authorities. 

Further, the court held that prisons are correctional institutions and cannot be considered as an extension of civil society's comfort. Therefore, it found that the compensation enhanced by the high court was justified and needed no interference.

Prisons are "tail-end," need reforms 

While the court clarified that the deficiencies are per se not attributable to the jail authorities, it nevertheless emphasised the current need for prison reforms, particularly the implementation of disability-sensitive infrastructure.

"This Court expresses deep concern over the plight of incarcerated individuals with disabilities, who are among the most marginalized and vulnerable groups, within the justice system. The social and structural barriers they face in society are only magnified within the prison environment. Unlike the minimal safeguards afforded to women prisoners, there is currently no specific legal or policy framework that guarantees dignity, accessibility, and protection for persons with disabilities or for members of the transgender community in prisons. From the stage of arrest through trial and incarceration, persons with disabilities face systemic disadvantage due to the lack of training and sensitivity among police and prison personnel."

It said that most prison facilities are structurally inaccessible to individuals with mobility, sensory or cognitive impairment. Such inaccessibility and denial of basic care violates Article 14 and 21 and are in breach of Sections 6, 25, and 28 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, which mandate States to ensure healthcare and non-discriminatory treatment for persons with disabilities, including those in custody.

"Institutional routines and infrastructure are not designed to accommodate diverse needs, making it difficult – or at times impossible – for such prisoners to use toilets, dining areas, libraries, or health clinics. Additionally, due to the absence of trained caregivers or appropriate custodial policies, persons with disabilities are often denied help with essential daily activities such as bathing, dressing, or eating. This neglect results in indignity, mental distress, and, at times, serious physical harm." 

Concluding, the Court also flagged the lack of disaggregated data on persons with disability. It said that the data gap has far-reaching implications.

"Lawful incarceration does not suspend the right to human dignity. The punishment lies only in the restriction of liberty – not in the denial of humane treatment or reasonable accommodations. Failure to meet these obligations inflicts disproportionate suffering on disabled prisoners and betrays the constitutional role of the State as a custodian – not a tormentor – of those it detains."

Case Title: L. MURUGANANTHAM v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS|SLP (C) No. 1785 OF 2023