Introduction:

In State of Karnataka v. Smt. Pavithra Gowda and Others, the Karnataka High Court was called upon to examine whether a Sessions Court could lawfully permit undertrial prisoners facing charges in a sensational murder case to receive home cooked food while in judicial custody, despite explicit directions from the Supreme Court warning jail authorities against extending any special treatment to the accused. The case arose from a trial court order dated 29 December 2025, followed by a clarificatory order dated 12 January 2026, which permitted accused numbers 1, 11 and 12 to receive food from their homes while lodged in jail during the pendency of trial in the Renukaswamy murder case. The State of Karnataka challenged these orders before the High Court, contending that they were contrary to binding directions of the Supreme Court and violated the principle of equality among prisoners. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while hearing the State’s plea, stayed the operation of the impugned orders and expressed serious concern over the trial court’s approach, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s earlier observations in the same criminal matter while cancelling bail of the co accused, including actor Darshan and Pavithra Gowda, where strict caution had been issued against providing any form of preferential treatment within prison. The High Court’s interim intervention thus raised significant questions about the limits of judicial discretion in prison administration, the meaning of humane treatment versus special privilege, and the obligation of subordinate courts to strictly follow binding directions of constitutional courts.

Arguments of the State:a

The State of Karnataka argued that the Sessions Court’s decision to permit home cooked food amounted to granting impermissible special treatment to undertrial prisoners, directly violating the spirit and letter of the Supreme Court’s earlier directions in the very same case. It was submitted that while cancelling bail of the accused in August 2025, the Supreme Court had categorically warned that no special or five star treatment should be provided to the accused due to their celebrity status or social standing, and had further stated that if any such preferential treatment was discovered, strict action including suspension of jail officials would follow. The State contended that permitting food from home, bypassing regular prison diet and established prison procedures, clearly constituted preferential treatment, regardless of whether similar facilities might have been granted in other cases. It was argued that prison administration is governed by detailed rules which allow home food only under narrowly defined medical or exceptional circumstances and through a prescribed procedure involving medical certification and administrative approval, none of which had been followed in the present case. According to the State, the accused had merely complained before the Sessions Court that the food served in jail was not of proper quality, and instead of directing prison authorities to improve facilities or examine the complaint through official channels, the court had straightaway allowed home cooked food, thereby overriding statutory prison rules. The State further submitted that the prison department had clarified that jail food had received a four star rating for nutritional adequacy and that the daily cost of meals was in accordance with government norms. It was argued that dissatisfaction with taste or timing of meals cannot form the basis for creating a separate food regime for select prisoners, especially in high profile cases where public confidence in the justice system is already under scrutiny. The State emphasized that equality before law and equal treatment in custody are fundamental constitutional principles, and granting personalized facilities to certain accused undermines not only prison discipline but also public perception of fairness. It was therefore urged that the Sessions Court orders be stayed and ultimately set aside as being contrary to Supreme Court directions, prison rules and constitutional norms of equality.

Arguments of the Respondents:

The counsel for the accused persons opposed the State’s plea and argued that the order permitting home cooked food did not amount to special treatment but was only a humanitarian measure to ensure basic dignity and health of undertrial prisoners. It was submitted that jail authorities were spending only around eighty five rupees per day per prisoner on food, and the quality and quantity of meals were substandard, with dinner allegedly being served as early as five in the evening, leaving prisoners without proper nutrition for long hours. The respondents’ counsel claimed that such conditions were inhuman and inconsistent with constitutional guarantees under Article 21 which protects the right to life and dignity even within prison walls. It was argued that accused number one was suffering from heart related ailments and another accused was above the age of fifty six, making proper nutrition medically important. The defence submitted that requests for better food were not about luxury but about survival and health, and that allowing food from home ensured that prisoners received meals compatible with medical and dietary needs. It was also contended that similar facilities had been granted to other accused persons in different cases, and such orders had not been challenged by the jail authorities, indicating that the practice was not unprecedented. The respondents’ counsel informed the High Court that records would be produced to show that home food permissions had been granted in other matters as well, and therefore singling out the present accused for denial would itself amount to discrimination. It was further argued that the Supreme Court’s observations about special treatment were made in the context of bail and alleged VIP privileges, and could not be stretched to deny basic humane facilities, especially when no evidence existed that the accused were receiving luxurious or extravagant benefits. According to the defence, prison rules themselves permit outside food under special circumstances, and the Sessions Court had exercised its discretion to address a genuine grievance relating to jail conditions. The respondents therefore requested that the High Court not interfere with the trial court’s order and instead direct the prison authorities to ensure that undertrial prisoners are treated humanely and not subjected to substandard living conditions.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, after hearing the State and the respondents, stayed the operation of the Sessions Court orders and expressed strong disapproval of the manner in which the trial court had acted in disregard of binding Supreme Court directions. The High Court referred specifically to the Supreme Court’s earlier observations while cancelling bail of the accused in the same murder case, where it had categorically stated that no special treatment should be given to the accused and that any deviation would attract strict action against jail officials. The High Court observed that providing special food to undertrial prisoners had been viewed by the Supreme Court as misconduct when it results in preferential treatment, and therefore subordinate courts must exercise extreme caution before passing orders that may be perceived as granting special privileges. Justice Nagaprasanna noted that although prison rules do permit food from home under special circumstances, such permission is subject to elaborate procedures including medical certification and administrative approvals, which appeared to have been bypassed in the present case. The Court observed that the Sessions Court, instead of ensuring compliance with prison rules, had directly ordered grant of home cooked food, which ran contrary to the Apex Court’s cautionary directions. The High Court stated that subordinate courts are constitutionally bound to follow the law declared by the Supreme Court, and cannot issue directions that conflict with or dilute those orders, especially in the same criminal proceeding. While acknowledging the defence’s concerns regarding food quality and medical needs, the Court clarified that such grievances must be addressed through lawful procedures and prison administration mechanisms, not by judicial shortcuts that risk creating inequality among prisoners. The High Court therefore stayed the impugned orders dated 29 December 2025 and 12 January 2026 until the next date of hearing and directed that emergent notice be served on the respondents through the jail superintendent. The Court also directed the defence to place relevant medical and factual details on record to substantiate claims regarding health issues and alleged inhuman conditions, indicating that while special privileges cannot be granted, legitimate concerns regarding prisoner welfare would still be examined within the framework of law. The matter was posted for further hearing on January 23, thereby keeping open the possibility of directing prison authorities to improve facilities uniformly rather than granting individualized concessions that could undermine equality and public confidence in the justice system.