Opening The Rift
therift
© 2026 The Rift. All Rights Reserved.
What’s on the Prison Plate? Odisha Human Rights Commission Seeks Answers on Tribal Prisoners’ Nutrition
The State’s responsibility does not end with keeping prisoners in custody; it must also ensure that incarceration does not unnecessarily deprive them of their dignity, health and cultural identity.
Key Takeaways
1 of 3
Automatically generated. Read full article for complete context.
OHRC takes cognizance of petition seeking inclusion of ragi, millets and traditional foods in prison menus; Home Department and Prisons DG directed to submit detailed reports by December 4
Bhubaneswar, Odisha: What happens when the food served inside prison walls does not correspond with the traditional dietary habits of the people eating it? Can a standard prison menu adequately address the nutritional needs of prisoners belonging to Odisha’s diverse Scheduled Tribe communities?
These questions have reached the Odisha Human Rights Commission (OHRC), which has taken cognizance of a public-interest complaint highlighting concerns over the dietary arrangements and nutritional well-being of tribal prisoners lodged in jails across the State, particularly those located in or serving Scheduled Areas.
In an order dated October 29, 2026, in Case No. 4292 of 2026, the Commission, chaired by Justice S. Pujahari, directed the Secretary of the Home Department, Government of Odisha, and the Director General of Prisons and Director of Correctional Services, Odisha, to conduct an inquiry and submit detailed reports by the next date of hearing, December 4, 2026.
The petition was filed on October 12 by advocate and human rights activist Biswapriya Kanungo under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
The complaint raises an important but relatively unexplored dimension of prison administration: whether the State’s prescribed dietary arrangements adequately account for local food practices, nutritional requirements and the availability of traditional food items in tribal regions.
The allegation: Traditional food habits and the morning meal
According to the petition, discussions with some prisoners and rights-based activists brought to light concerns that certain tribal prisoners were reportedly not consuming the prescribed morning diet because of differences between the food provided and their traditional dietary habits.
The petitioner has expressed apprehension that the situation could adversely affect their health, particularly because breakfast is an important component of daily nutrition.
The petition identifies ragi (finger millet), minor millets, traditional pulses, roots, tubers and green leafy vegetables as locally available food items that form part of the traditional dietary practices of several tribal communities in Odisha.
It argues that these foods could be considered for incorporation into prison menus wherever nutritionally suitable, locally available and administratively feasible.
Importantly, the complaint does not demand separate kitchens, preferential treatment or an unrestricted right to personalised food choices for tribal prisoners.
OHRC recognises a human-rights question
The Commission’s order carries significance beyond the question of what should be served for breakfast.
While examining the petition, the OHRC observed that persons deprived of liberty continue to enjoy the right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Commission noted that this right includes access to adequate, nutritious and wholesome food and healthcare.
It further observed that prisoners remain in State custody and that prison administration is carried out by public servants under the State Home Department.
Consequently, a complaint alleging that prison dietary arrangements affect the health of a class of inmates raises a human-rights question and, if substantiated, may also involve negligence by public servants in preventing violations.
The Commission also examined the jurisdictional objections that could arise under the Protection of Human Rights Act and recorded that the matter, relating to prisons under the State List, was not barred by Section 21(5) at this stage. It further held that Section 36(2) was not attracted at this stage because the grievance was of a continuing nature.
However, the Commission has been careful not to prejudge the allegations.
It expressly recorded that there was presently insufficient material to determine whether prisoners had actually been denied adequate food, suffered adverse health consequences or whether the existing dietary scale could reasonably accommodate local foods.
The merits of the complaint and the demand for an Expert Committee have therefore been left open pending receipt of the reports.
Five questions the State must answer
The OHRC has sought specific factual information from the prison administration and a policy response from the Home Department.
The Director General of Prisons has been asked to furnish factual particulars, while the Home Secretary must additionally explain the State Government’s position on the policy aspects.
The reports must address five important issues:
- Existing prison diet: What dietary scale and menu are currently prescribed in Odisha’s prisons? What are the applicable calorie and nutritional standards, and how much is spent per prisoner per day? Further, whether and how has Paragraph 913 of the Odisha Model Jail Manual, 2020, been implemented in practice?
- Tribal prisoners in Scheduled Areas: Which prisons are situated in or serve Scheduled Areas, including those in the undivided Koraput district? How many Scheduled Tribe prisoners are lodged there, and what dietary arrangements apply to them?
- Inclusion of traditional foods: To what extent are ragi, millets, traditional pulses, roots, tubers, leafy vegetables and other locally available nutritious foods already included in prison diets?
- Refusal of morning meals: Have any prisoners declined the prescribed morning diet because of traditional food habits? What have prison Medical Officers observed regarding their health?
- Government policy: Has the State Government considered incorporating local foods into prison menus within the prescribed nutritional standards? If so, what action has been taken or is proposed?
These questions could provide the first systematic picture of how regional dietary considerations are being addressed in Odisha’s prison system.
The Model Prison Manual already recognises local food habits
One of the central legal arguments in the petition is that the proposed dietary accommodation is not an entirely new concept.
The Ministry of Home Affairs’ Model Prison Manual, 2016, contains provisions that recognise local dietary practices while prescribing prison food standards.
Paragraph 6.04 provides that dietary scales may vary according to local customs and dietary habits, subject to prescribed nutritional standards. It also requires consideration of prisoners’ habits, modes of living and climatic conditions.
Paragraph 6.05 expressly includes millet among cereals in the model dietary scale.
Paragraph 6.06 provides for special diets or additional calories where the prescribed diet is unsuitable or insufficient because of a prisoner’s health condition or peculiar mode of living, subject to the prescribed medical and administrative process.
The petitioner has argued that these provisions provide sufficient administrative flexibility for Odisha to examine the inclusion of nutritionally appropriate traditional foods without compromising the minimum dietary entitlement of any prisoner.
The Odisha Model Jail Manual, 2020, is also central to the dispute.
Paragraph 913 provides for the supply of diet to prisoners according to the dietary scale fixed by the State Government from time to time.
The question now before the authorities is whether the existing implementation of this provision adequately addresses nutritional requirements and regional food practices across the State.
Supreme Court judgments and the constitutional responsibility of prison authorities
The petition relies on several Supreme Court decisions to establish that imprisonment does not extinguish a person’s fundamental rights.
In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 494, the Supreme Court recognised that prisoners retain fundamental rights except to the extent that they are lawfully curtailed by incarceration.
In In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2016) 3 SCC 700, the Supreme Court emphasised that prison living conditions must be consistent with human dignity and specifically referred to health, hygiene, food, clothing and rehabilitation.
The petition also refers to Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 753, in which the Supreme Court examined discriminatory practices in prison administration and reinforced the constitutional requirements of equality and non-discrimination.
The relevance of this judgment to the present complaint is that regional dietary accommodation should not become an instrument of caste-based or community-based segregation.
The petitioner has accordingly proposed a common prison menu with nutritionally justified regional variations rather than separate kitchens or discriminatory food arrangements.
Another important reference is the Supreme Court’s decision in L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu, Civil Appeal No. 9487 of 2025, 2025 INSC 844, dated July 15, 2025.
As relied upon in the petition, the decision clarifies that Article 21 does not confer an unrestricted right to demand personalised or luxurious food choices. At the same time, the State remains responsible for ensuring adequate, nutritious and medically appropriate food for prisoners.
The distinction is important: the present complaint is not about individual preferences or expensive food demands. It concerns the possibility that locally available and nutritionally valuable foods could improve the adequacy and acceptability of the existing prison diet.
Koraput and the Scheduled Areas question
The Commission’s specific reference to prisons in the undivided Koraput district is particularly significant.
Odisha’s tribal regions have distinctive agricultural, ecological and food traditions. Millets and other locally available food products are important components of food practices in several communities.
The petition seeks to examine whether the existing prison food system sufficiently reflects these regional realities.
The Commission has not yet established whether the alleged refusal of morning meals is widespread, whether it has caused measurable health consequences or whether existing prison menus are nutritionally inadequate.
Those questions will depend substantially on the factual reports now sought from the authorities.
Nevertheless, the inquiry creates an opportunity to examine whether a uniform dietary framework can be implemented with appropriate regional flexibility without compromising nutritional standards or equality among prisoners.
Will Odisha constitute an Expert Committee?
The petition has sought the constitution of an Expert Committee comprising representatives of the prison administration, prison medical services, nutrition and dietary experts, and the ST & SC Development Department.
The proposed committee would identify suitable traditional food items and assess their nutritional value, quantities, frequency of inclusion, seasonal availability, procurement costs, preparation methods, hygiene and food safety.
It has also sought consideration of pilot implementation in selected prisons situated in or serving Scheduled Areas, followed by an evaluation of nutritional, administrative and financial outcomes.
However, the OHRC has not ordered the constitution of such a committee at this stage.
It has expressly left the issue open until the State’s reports are received.
The Commission has instead initiated the fact-finding process by directing the two senior government authorities to investigate the allegations and explain the existing dietary arrangements.
Accountability beyond the prison kitchen
The case raises a larger question about the relationship between prison administration and the constitutional responsibility of the State.
Prisoners cannot independently choose where they live, what food is available to them or how their daily meals are prepared. These decisions are substantially controlled by the prison administration.
That makes the quality, nutritional adequacy and accessibility of prison food an important aspect of custodial accountability.
The inquiry will also test whether the Government maintains adequate records of prisoners’ dietary requirements, medical observations, food expenditure and the actual implementation of prescribed menus.
The distinction between a diet chart on paper and the food actually served inside prisons will be crucial.
A prescribed calorie standard alone may not answer every question about dietary adequacy, nutritional balance, food quality and actual consumption.
View of the Petitioner
When contacted, the petitioner, advocate and human rights activist Biswapriya Kanungo, said:
“As a human rights activist, I believe that the right to food is not merely about providing a prescribed quantity of calories; it is an integral part of the right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Food is also an expression of cultural identity, traditional knowledge and community life. For tribal communities, traditional food habits are closely connected with their history, culture, relationship with forests and land, and distinct ways of living. A person does not lose this cultural identity upon entering prison.
Therefore, prison administration must recognise not only the nutritional requirements but also the legitimate cultural and traditional food practices of tribal prisoners. The inclusion of ragi, millets, traditional pulses, roots, tubers and green leafy vegetables, wherever nutritionally appropriate and locally available, would be a meaningful recognition of their identity and dignity.
This is not a demand for preferential treatment or separate food arrangements, but for a humane, inclusive and non-discriminatory prison food policy that respects both nutritional standards and cultural diversity.
The State’s responsibility does not end with keeping prisoners in custody; it must also ensure that incarceration does not unnecessarily deprive them of their dignity, health and cultural identity.
Prison reform must therefore be guided by constitutional morality, equality, human dignity and respect for India’s tribal diversity.”
December 4: A crucial date for prison accountability
The OHRC has directed that the matter be placed before it on December 4, 2026, by which time the reports from the Home Department and the Director General of Prisons are expected.
The responses could determine whether the matter requires further investigation, expert assessment, a regional dietary policy or other appropriate directions.
For now, the Commission has taken the first significant procedural step: bringing the State’s prison dietary arrangements under formal human-rights scrutiny.
The larger issue is not whether prisoners should receive food of their personal preference. It is whether the State, while exercising complete control over their daily living conditions, is ensuring that the food provided is adequate, nutritious, medically appropriate and reasonably responsive to regional realities.
Disclaimer:The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Rift.
