The Renukaswamy murder case has captured widespread public attention since June 2024, when a brutal killing allegedly linked to Kannada film star Darshan Thoogudeepa, his partner Pavithra Gowda, and several others shocked Karnataka and beyond. After months of investigation and legal proceedings, a recent order from the Karnataka High Court has become one of the most discussed developments — the court has stayed lower court directions that allowed the accused to receive home-cooked food while in jail.
This decision marks a significant moment in how the legal system balances custodial rights, prison rules, and egalitarian principles of justice when high-profile individuals are involved. The following narrative examines the facts, judicial reasoning, legal norms, and broader implications of this order.
Background: The Renukaswamy Murder Case and Detention of the Accused
The case stems from the kidnapping and murder of Renukaswamy, a resident of Chitradurga, in June 2024. According to police and investigative records, he was allegedly abducted, tortured, and killed in Bengaluru, with evidence pointing toward involvement by a group of individuals including Darshan and Pavithra who were later arrested and charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to murder, kidnapping, criminal conspiracy, and destruction of evidence.
The matter gained intense media focus because of Darshan’s stature as a leading film actor and the sensational nature of the allegations. Law enforcement agencies filed extensive charge sheets, and as legal proceedings unfolded, the accused were placed in judicial custody while the trial moved ahead.
The Lower Court’s Order and Its Rationale
During custody, multiple accused, including Pavithra Gowda, R. Nagaraja, and M. Lakshman, orally informed the trial court in late December 2025 that they were dissatisfied with the regular prison diet and requested permission to receive meals from their homes. The Sessions Court took this oral submission and, in response, directed the jail authorities to allow home-cooked food once a week, and on special medical advice for other circumstances, for these accused.
This order widened the scope of food provisions beyond what is typically permitted under prison regulations, where home-cooked food is allowed only under strictly defined exceptional circumstances and through explicit administrative and medical procedures.
On the face of it, the trial court’s rationale leaned toward addressing concerns of food quality and nutritional adequacy for the undertrial prisoners. Counsel for the accused argued that the regular prison meals were insufficient and even harmful to health, implying that home-cooked food would better meet their dietary needs.
The High Court Intervention and Its Reasons
However, on January 20, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, intervened and stayed the trial court’s order that permitted home-cooked food to the accused. The High Court’s foremost observation was that the lower court’s direction violated established prison rules and directly conflicted with binding directives from the Supreme Court.
The High Court noted that home-cooked food can be permitted under prison rules only if certain administrative procedures and medical certifications are followed, none of which were complied with in this case. More importantly, the High Court cited a Supreme Court position — articulated during the cancellation of bail for the same accused — that no special treatment should be granted to prisoners, regardless of their social status, wealth, or fame. The Supreme Court had warned that providing such perks would amount to misconduct and could result in disciplinary action, including the suspension of jail officials.
In his order, Justice Nagaprasanna underscored that prisons must uphold the same treatment for all prisoners — “a prisoner is a prisoner, undertrial or otherwise”. Special privileges, especially when dispensed without following procedures, not only undermine prison discipline but risk eroding public confidence in the fairness of the justice system. The High Court therefore stayed the trial court’s directives, effectively curtailing the home-food facility until a further hearing.
Broader Legal and Human Rights Context
The High Court’s order brings into sharp focus several fundamental issues at the intersection of criminal justice, custodial rights, and judicial equality:
Equality Before Law
At the heart of the High Court’s reasoning is the constitutional principle of equality before law. The judiciary reaffirmed that justice systems must not be skewed by personal status or public stature. Even when accommodating legitimate health or medical concerns, courts and authorities must operate strictly within regulatory procedures without bending norms to accommodate specific individuals.
Prison Autonomy and Rule-Based Custody
Prison standards and rules are structured to balance security, discipline, humane conditions, and fairness. While home-cooked food can be allowed in exceptional circumstances — often involving medical conditions or specific dietary requirements recognized by a medical professional — such allowances must pass through administrative vetting. The High Court’s decision reinforces that prison autonomy cannot be overridden by ad-hoc judicial orders that disregard statutory frameworks.
Public Perception of Justice
High-profile cases often generate intense public scrutiny, and decisions perceived as privileging influential individuals can fuel a sense of injustice. The High Court’s emphasis on equal treatment resonates with wider concerns around fairness and public trust in legal institutions, especially when dealing with prominent personalities.
Human and Health Considerations in Custody
While the legal focus has understandably centered on the constitutional and procedural dimensions, there are also genuine concerns around health and well-being in prison. Reports from the prison custody period have suggested that some accused, including Darshan, faced health issues allegedly linked to prison food quality and living conditions, leading to previous petitions for basic amenities and dietary accommodation. These concerns highlight ongoing debates about prison conditions in India, access to adequate nutrition, and procedural avenues for prisoners to seek relief.
It is important to recognize that while courts must ensure justice and equality, they also have a responsibility to uphold dignity of life even for those in custody. How this balance unfolds through future hearings and possible directives on prison conditions remains a matter to watch as the trial progresses.
Conclusion: A Defining Moment in a High-Profile Trial
The Karnataka High Court’s decision to deny home-cooked food to Darshan, Pavithra Gowda, and other accused in the Renukaswamy murder case is not just a procedural directive — it symbolizes the judiciary’s firm stance on equal treatment, adherence to prison rules, and reinforcement of constitutional principles even amid intense public interest.
By staying the trial court’s orders, the High Court has reaffirmed that the justice system must resist bending norms for high-profile individuals, no matter the circumstances. As the trial continues and further hearings take place, the courts will likely face additional challenges balancing legal procedure, custodial rights, public perception, and fairness in a case that continues to unfold in the public eye.
FACTS Transcripts proudly serves students and professionals across a wide range of regions to support their academic and career goals. Our services are available in:
India
United States
Canada
United Kingdom
New Zealand
Australia
Russia
Middle East
North America
Africa
Our Services – FACTS Transcripts
We at FACTS Transcripts assist in various services, including:
Mark Sheet Transcripts
E-Transcripts
Duplicate Mark Sheets & Degree Certificates
Medium of Instructions Certificates
Attestations
HRD Attestation / Apostille Services
ECA (Educational Credentials Assessment)
Trusted by leading global verification organizations, including WES, IQAS, PEBC, NDEB, NASBA, CAPR, NZQA, ICAS, NCESS, ICES, ECE, eduPASS, ACEI, GCEUS, Comparative Education Services, NNAS, NCA, SAQA, QMAS, FORAC, Australian Pharmacy Council, and more.
FACTS Transcripts – The preferred choice for university document verification worldwide. We ensure a hassle-free process for obtaining your transcripts.
