A Special Court in Chennai has issued a significant directive permitting former Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi to receive home-cooked meals while in judicial custody at Puzhal Central Prison. The decision, handed down on October 30, 2026, by Special Judge Dr. L.S. Sathiyamurthy, addresses the urgent medical needs of the undertrial prisoner, who has been battling recurrent acute-on-chronic pancreatitis. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that incarcerated individuals retain access to healthcare and specialized diets necessitated by their health conditions, even when such requests challenge standard prison protocols.

The petitioner, who was remanded to judicial custody on October 26, 2026, in connection with an alleged corruption case filed by the Central Crime Branch, had moved the court claiming that the standard rations provided within the prison facility were causing severe physiological distress. His legal team argued that his diagnosed condition requires a strictly monitored regimen of low-protein and low-fat food, which they maintained was unavailable within the facility’s mass-distribution system. The petitioner reported a loss of approximately 3 kilograms within five days of incarceration, characterizing the lack of suitable nutrition as a mounting health crisis that the prison administration had failed to mitigate.

While the prosecution opposed the request, characterizing it as a potential breach of prison discipline and an attempt to create special privileges, the court prioritized the constitutional mandate to protect human dignity. The prosecution argued that the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules of 2024 prescribe a uniform system for food preparation and distribution, suggesting that deviations from this system could complicate the orderly administration of the jail. They further asserted that the accused did not hold an absolute right to demand specific dietary arrangements based on personal preference. However, the court found these arguments insufficient when weighed against the documented medical necessity presented in the petition.

"The petitioner being a prison inmate in the judicial custody is to be treated as a human with all dignities," the court observed during the proceedings. In its decision, the court relied on emerging judicial precedents regarding the rights of prisoners. Specifically, the judge highlighted guidelines derived from recent superior court rulings, which emphasize that prison authorities have an affirmative duty to tailor diets to the unique medical needs of inmates, particularly those with chronic conditions or disabilities. The court cited a 2026 directive from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court , which stated, "That reasonable accommodations are not optional but integral to any humane and just carceral system and that a transformation grounded in compassion, accountability and a firm constitutional commitment to dignity and equality is urgently needed."

The court acknowledged that, although the prison administration—specifically the Superintendent of Puzhal Central Prison—had not been formally named as a respondent, the legal duty of the court to safeguard the petitioner's rights necessitated an immediate order. Rather than dismissing the plea on procedural grounds, the judge chose to issue direct instructions to the prison authorities to ensure the petitioner's wellbeing. The ruling mandates that the prison administration must allow the petitioner to consume food brought from his home, provided it adheres to strict conditions regarding safety, hygiene, and inspection.

Under the conditions set by the court, the petitioner is required to provide a written undertaking accepting full personal responsibility for the quality, wholesomeness, and safety of the food supplied from outside sources. This measure ensures that the prison authorities remain shielded from liability should any issues arise regarding the food’s preparation or transport. Furthermore, the court clarified that the petitioner will not be permitted to claim any reimbursement or cost associated with these external arrangements. The prison authorities have been authorized to conduct thorough inspections of all food items before they are delivered to the petitioner to ensure that no prohibited items enter the custodial environment.

This development follows reports that the petitioner had struggled with the standard prison fare, which he claimed aggravated his chronic abdominal pain. His legal team had initially sought "A" class prison facilities to ensure better living conditions, as had been recommended in the original remand warrant. Despite the court's earlier instructions, the petitioner alleged that the jail authorities had not fully implemented these directives, specifically noting the absence of adequate western-style amenities and the provision of unsuitable food.

The court’s order serves as a critical affirmation of the principle that judicial custody does not strip an individual of their right to medical care. By balancing the state's interest in prison security with the fundamental right to health protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, the order sets a benchmark for how custodial institutions must handle prisoners with specialized medical requirements. The court has directed that its order be communicated via electronic means to the Superintendent of Puzhal Central Prison to ensure immediate compliance.

As the legal proceedings in the underlying corruption case continue, this order provides a temporary, court-monitored resolution to the petitioner’s dietary crisis. The court has maintained that these adjustments are purely medical in nature and should not interfere with the ongoing police investigations or standard security procedures. The resolution reflects a judiciary increasingly focused on the intersection of human rights and administrative accountability, reinforcing the notion that even within the confines of a carceral system, the state remains responsible for the humane treatment and medical stability of every undertrial individual. The case will now proceed through the standard litigation channels, with the court ensuring that its directives on diet and care remain in effect until further notice or changes in the petitioner's medical status.