Supreme Court: No Right to Luxury Food in Prisons

Disability rights don’t mandate costly inmate diets, court clarifies, but reform needs are stark.

The Supreme Court has ruled that while prisons must accommodate prisoners with disabilities, this doesn’t extend to providing personalized or expensive food items. The court emphasized that prisons are correctional facilities, not havens for creature comforts.

Dietary Demands vs. Inmate Rights

A bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan stated that the inability of prison authorities to supply preferred diets to disabled inmates stems from systemic issues rather than a violation of human rights. The court observed that the non-supply of non-essential items is not a rights violation unless it causes demonstrable harm to health or dignity.

“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.”

The ruling came as the court issued guidelines for prisons in Tamil Nadu. The justices addressed a petitioner’s claim of being denied adequate protein-rich food, such as eggs, chicken, and nuts. While acknowledging the vulnerability of persons with disabilities and their right to reasonable accommodation, the court clarified that a mere lack of costly food items does not automatically constitute a fundamental rights breach.

The State’s obligation, the court underscored, is to ensure all inmates, including those with disabilities, receive sufficient, nutritious, and medically appropriate food, contingent on medical certification. This does not equate to a right to demand bespoke or luxurious dietary choices.

Case Details and Human Rights Commission Findings

The petitioner, an advocate with a disability, had alleged custodial mistreatment and inadequate provisions, including a lack of protein-rich food and proper medical care, after his arrest for a civil dispute. His initial complaint to the Tamil Nadu Human Rights Commission secured him ₹1 lakh in compensation and led to disciplinary action against the arresting officer, with the arrest deemed illegal.

However, the commission dismissed the complaint against prison authorities, finding no human rights violation attributable to them. This decision was upheld by the Madras High Court, though it enhanced the compensation to ₹5,00,000. The Supreme Court concurred with these findings, noting that the deficiencies arose from institutional limitations, not deliberate neglect or malice by jail staff.

Urgent Need for Prison Reforms and Disability Inclusion

Despite clarifying that the specific deficiencies were not directly attributable to jail authorities, the Supreme Court highlighted the pressing need for comprehensive prison reforms, particularly regarding disability-sensitive infrastructure. The court expressed deep concern for incarcerated individuals with disabilities, calling them among the most marginalized in the justice system.

“The social and structural barriers they face in society are only magnified within the prison environment,” the court stated. It pointed out the absence of specific legal or policy frameworks guaranteeing dignity, accessibility, and protection for persons with disabilities and transgender individuals within prisons, unlike the minimal safeguards for women prisoners.

The court detailed how systemic disadvantages manifest from arrest through incarceration due to a lack of training and sensitivity among police and prison personnel. Most prison facilities are structurally inaccessible for individuals with mobility, sensory, or cognitive impairments, violating their rights under Articles 14 and 21, and contravening Sections 6, 25, and 28 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

“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.”

Furthermore, the court flagged the critical lack of disaggregated data on prisoners with disabilities, noting its significant implications for policy and support. The ruling concluded by emphasizing that lawful incarceration restricts liberty, not humane treatment or necessary accommodations. The state’s failure in these duties inflicts disproportionate suffering and betrays its custodial role.

According to the National Crime Records Bureau, over 2.7% of India’s prison population has a reported disability, a figure likely underestimated given data collection challenges (Prison Statistics India, 2022).