Karnataka HC overturns court order granting home food to murder accused Darshan

Kannada actor Darshan, his partner Pavithra Gowda, and other accused in the Renukaswamy murder case cannot receive home-cooked food in prison unless there is medical advice supporting such a request, the High Court of Karnataka has held. The court set aside a trial court order that had permitted them to receive home-cooked meals once a week.

The High Court on March 4 observed that home-cooked food for undertrials is not prohibited under prison rules but can be granted only after following due procedure and based on medical recommendations. “Permission cannot be granted merely on request or as a matter of indulgence,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said.

The ruling came on a petition filed by the Superintendent of Prisons challenging two orders of the 56th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court dated December 29, 2025, and January 12. The trial court had allowed home-cooked food for three accused, including Darshan and Pavithra Gowda, based on oral submissions that proper food was not being provided in jail. No formal application had been filed as required under prison procedures.

When the Superintendent sought clarification on these orders, citing prison rules and pointing to directions against extending special treatment to the accused, the trial court warned him for not complying. It also went on to extend permission for home-cooked food to all accused in the case, even without applications from them.

The High Court termed these directions “legally unsustainable,” noting that granting such concessions without medical recommendation could lead to indiscriminate demands and disrupt prison administration. It, however, allowed the accused the liberty to apply for home-cooked food if medically advised and in accordance with the rules.

During the hearing, counsel for Pavithra Gowda raised concerns over the quality of food supplied in prison, pointing out that authorities spend only Rs 85 per day per inmate for four meals. The High Court said this argument raised legitimate questions about nutritional sufficiency. Stressing that the “protection of human dignity does not cease at the gates of the prison,” the court directed digital publication of the prison menu at visible locations.

It also ordered the establishment of a complaint mechanism for inmates to report issues with food quality and directed the medical officer or a designated dietitian to conduct periodic inspections of food prepared for prisoners and record their certification on its quality.