In late January 2026, the Government of Karnataka introduced one of the most significant and controversial prison reform measures in recent years by issuing strict norms that ban all cooked food being brought into prisons from private sources. This directive, issued by the Director General of Police (Prisons), has sparked public debate on inmate welfare, prison security, human rights, and the challenges of administering correctional institutions in a large and diverse state like Karnataka.
The policy is historic because it fundamentally changes how prisoners — both those serving sentences and those in judicial custody (undertrial prisoners) — can receive food supplies from family members, well-wishers, or private benefactors. Until this point, prison norms allowed inmates to receive food cooked outside under certain conditions. Now, under the new regulations, that practice is strictly prohibited, with limited exceptions for uncooked and packaged items — all subject to security checks.
What the New Regulation Says
The circular issued by the Prisons and Correctional Services Department on January 23, 2026, invokes the powers under Section 30 of the Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963, to regulate food, clothing, bedding, and other items received from private sources. Under this provision of the law, prisoners may traditionally be permitted to “purchase or receive” such items, but subject to inspection and regulation by prison authorities.
The key changes brought about by the new norms include:
Ban on Cooked Food from Outside: No cooked meals, homemade food, or food prepared by family members, friends, or private individuals will be allowed into any prison for civil prisoners or undertrial prisoners.
Restricted Permitted Items: Only limited uncooked and packaged food items may be brought from outside, such as fresh fruits (bananas, apples, mangoes, guavas) up to two kilograms per person per week, dry fruits (almonds, cashews, walnuts, raisins) up to half a kilogram, and packaged snacks like biscuits and chips up to half a kilogram. All such items must undergo thorough security screening by prison authorities.
Clothing and Bedding Restrictions: Inmates may receive only a fixed number of clothing items — two pairs of outer garments and two pairs of undergarments, besides what they are wearing at admission. Excess clothing will be seized and confiscated. Bedding is generally not permitted from outside, though an additional blanket may be allowed on request after security checks and space availability are confirmed.
The order is meant to be enforced statewide, applying to all district, central, and subordinate prisons in Karnataka, and it takes effect immediately.
Why the Government Took This Step
The government’s stated rationale for the new norms revolves around security, safety, administrative feasibility, and equal treatment of prisoners:
Security and Safety Concerns
Prisons are sensitive environments that require tight control over all things that enter the facility. Cooked food delivered from outside, even with good intentions, creates security vulnerabilities. Concealing prohibited items — such as drugs, mobile phones, SIM cards, weapons, or other contraband — within food parcels has long been a concern in many correctional systems worldwide. Removing cooked food from private sources simplifies this risk factor because authorities only need to inspect packaged and raw items.
Fair and Equal Treatment of Prisoners
Officials have argued that allowing some inmates to receive cooked meals from outside — often based on special requests or judicial orders — creates unequal treatment within the prison population. This was highlighted in a recent case where a trial court ordered that home-cooked food be permitted for high-profile undertrial prisoners, but the High Court stayed that order on appeal, citing legal principles that no prisoner should receive special privileges above others.
According to prison authorities, meals prepared within the prison are certified by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and meet nutritional and hygiene standards. Therefore, the idea is to offer a consistent baseline of food quality for all inmates.
Administrative Practicality
Managing private food deliveries on a case-by-case basis is administratively burdensome, particularly in overcrowded prisons where staff shortages are acute. The recent prison reforms committee report in Karnataka highlighted chronic staffing issues, suggesting that reducing the scope for private deliveries could reduce logistical pressures.
The Legal and Historical Context
To understand the significance of this policy shift, it helps to look at the existing legal framework:
Under Section 30 of the Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963, civil prisoners and unconvicted criminal prisoners may be permitted to receive food, clothing, and bedding from private sources, subject to inspection and regulations approved by prison authorities. This provision was historically intended to allow inmates to maintain personal necessities and comforts to some degree.
However, prison manuals and rules — such as the Karnataka Prisons Manual — also grant prison superintendents broad discretion to refuse items deemed “unnecessary, unsuitable, or unduly luxurious”. These provisions already allowed authorities to regulate private food supplies, but the new circular goes further by explicitly banning cooked food without leaving discretion to individual prison superintendents.
This change effectively narrows the scope for judicial or administrative exceptions that had occasionally allowed prisoners — even undertrials — to receive cooked meals under special circumstances.
Reactions and Debates Around the Policy
The new prison norms have triggered strong reactions from different sections of legal experts, civil liberties advocates, prison reform activists, and public commentators.
Support for the Policy
Supporters argue that the ban is necessary to uphold prison discipline and security, reduce corruption and misuse of privileges, and ensure equal treatment of all inmates regardless of their social status or influence. In particular, they point to recent judicial rulings that have emphasized the need for strict adherence to formal rules and guidelines in prison matters, rejecting special privileges for high-profile prisoners.
They also highlight that prison-provided food is standardized and regulated, often meeting safety and nutritional standards mandated by authorities. Removing external cooked food can therefore protect inmate health rather than harm it.
Concerns and Criticisms
Critics of the policy raise several important issues:
Human Rights and Dignity
Civil liberties activists caution that prisons must balance security with the human rights and dignity of inmates. For some prisoners, especially those serving long sentences or awaiting trial for extended periods, contact with family through food and other personal items can be a crucial psychological support mechanism. A blanket ban may inadvertently erode this aspect of humane treatment.
Special Dietary Needs
Some inmates have dietary requirements due to cultural, religious, or medical reasons. While prison food may be standardized, it may not always accommodate specific needs that families traditionally helped provide through external cooked meals. Limiting access to family-provided food may disproportionately affect people whose nutritional needs are not easily met by the default prison diet.
Judicial Oversight
There is also debate about the role of courts in balancing prison regulations and individual rights. In recent high-profile cases where trial courts permitted home-cooked food, higher courts have intervened to stay those orders based on legal precedent and principles of equal treatment, illustrating that the judiciary remains deeply engaged in interpreting how prison rules should be applied.
What This Means for Karnataka’s Prison System
The reform marks a major tightening of control over one of the most everyday aspects of prisoner life — food. It signals an administrative shift toward standardization and uniform application of prison discipline across the board.
For prisoners and their families, this means that visits and support will emphasize non-food forms of contact, such as letters, certified items, and regulated visitation systems. For authorities, it means an added responsibility to ensure that prison-provided food meets not just minimum safety standards but also nutritional adequacy that addresses the diverse needs of the prison population.
The policy may also become a reference point for broader debates on prison reform in other Indian states. The balance between security imperatives and humane treatment of inmates is one that correctional systems everywhere struggle to strike.
Conclusion
Karnataka’s new order banning cooked food from private sources in prisons underlines the complex intersection of law, security, human rights, and administrative governance. As prisons operate at the crossroads of correction and care, policies like this illustrate how governments attempt to manage risk and fairness in environments that are inherently constrained and challenging.
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.
