Medical facilities don’t lapse on appeal disposal: Rajasthan High Court directs bed, alkaline water for Asaram

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that judicial orders granting medical facilities to a prisoner on account of his health condition are not tied to the pendency of appellate proceedings and do not stand withdrawn upon disposal of his criminal appeal, directing that 85-year-old convict Asaram — serving life imprisonment following conviction under the POCSO Act — be provided a bed, bedding, and alkaline drinking water in Central Jail, Jodhpur.

Justice Sanjeet Purohit, sitting as Vacation Judge, held that the obligation of the State to provide adequate medical care to a person in custody continues unabated regardless of whether the prisoner is an undertrial, a convict with a pending appeal, or a convict whose appeal has attained finality, observing that the disposal of an appeal by itself creates no legal basis for curtailing or withdrawing facilities granted to address a prisoner’s peculiar medical needs.

“The entitlement of a prisoner to receive necessary medical facilities, assistance, and other accommodations required on account of his health condition cannot be made contingent upon the procedural stage of the criminal proceedings… The disposal of an appeal, by itself, does not create any legal basis for curtailing, withdrawing, or recalling facilities that were granted primarily to address the peculiar medical needs of the prisoner,” the Court observed.

Asaram, convicted of offences under the IPC, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, vide judgment dated 25.04.2018 by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan, had his conviction partly upheld by a Division Bench of this Court on 27.05.2026, whereby he was directed to undergo imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. Following surrender after the conclusion of appellate proceedings, the facilities extended to him during trial and during the pendency of his appeal — including privately-sourced food, visits by treating doctors, a wheelchair, and the services of an attendant — were withdrawn by the jail authorities.

In his writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner contended that these facilities had been extended over several years by successive orders of both the Supreme Court and the High Court, predicated upon his advanced age and a constellation of serious ailments documented in AIIMS, Jodhpur reports: Critical Coronary Artery Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Renal Tubular Acidosis, recurrent Hyperkalemia, Sarcopenia, and Osteoporosis. He sought the restoration of all existing facilities and additionally prayed for a bed, alkaline drinking water, attendants of his own choice, a private ICU-equipped ambulance, a temperature-controlled environment, and daily visits by his personal doctor, Dr. Sachit Bhola.

The Court took note of the chain of prior judicial orders: a 2014 Coordinate Bench order permitting supply of private food twice daily under Rule 223 of the Rajasthan Prison Rules, 1951; a Supreme Court order dated 20.01.2015 permitting Dr. Arun Tyagi to visit and treat the petitioner; a Division Bench order dated 10.08.2020 modifying the food permission to once daily; orders in 2024 permitting treatment at Arogyadham Hospital, Jodhpur in police custody; a July 2024 order permitting visits by Dr. Sachit Bhola as and when required; and a 2025 order permitting the use of a wheelchair and an attendant within jail premises. The Court found that all these directions were “not founded upon considerations of any status or privilege, but upon judicial assessment of petitioner’s age, medical condition and requirements of treatment” and that there was no material indicating any misuse thereof.

On the prayer for a bed and bedding, the Court found that AIIMS, Jodhpur reports consistently recorded that the petitioner suffered from osteoporosis of the spine and hip, generalised muscle weakness (sarcopenia), and severe difficulty in standing up from a sitting or lying position, exposing him to an increased risk of falls and fractures. The respondents’ compliance report contended that no other inmate in the same ward was being provided a separate bed. The Court rejected this contention, holding that “the principle of equality cannot be applied in a manner that disregards established medical needs of a particular prisoner.” It noted that the Jail Superintendent, who was present in court, did not dispute the petitioner’s assertion that bedding facilities had in fact been provided to him during his earlier period of custody. Accordingly, respondents were directed to provide a bed and bedding.

On alkaline water, the Court found that medical certificate dated 31.05.2026 issued by Dr. Sachit Bhola recommended alkaline water as part of supportive management. The Assistant to the Additional Advocate General fairly conceded that the prison administration had no objection to its supply. The Court directed that alkaline drinking water be permitted along with privately-sourced food, subject to the same conditions and safeguards governing the existing food supply arrangement.

The prayers for attendants of the petitioner’s own choice, a private ICU ambulance for all hospital visits, a temperature-controlled ward, and daily doctor visits were declined. The Court found that two attendants from among jail inmates were already being provided; that two jail ambulances equipped with oxygen cylinders were available, supplemented by access to the 108 emergency ambulance; and that Dr. Sachit Bhola’s visits had been facilitated as and when required with the latest visit on 30.05.2026. However, on ambulances, the Court directed that in a medical emergency, prison authorities may avail a privately-arranged ambulance if circumstances so warrant. Doctor visits by Dr. Sachit Bhola were directed to be permitted ordinarily once every fortnight, with the liberty to permit additional visits in emergencies.

Anchoring its analysis in the constitutional jurisprudence on prisoner rights, the Court drew on D. Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1975) 3 SCC 185], Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [(1978) 4 SCC 494] — wherein Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer had famously declared that “prisons are built with stones of law” and that Part III of the Constitution cannot “be held at bay by jail officials” — and Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi [(1981) 1 SCC 608], to hold that a prisoner continues to bear fundamental rights under Article 21 to the extent compatible with confinement and that the State’s obligation to preserve life, health, and dignity subsists throughout the period of custody.

The writ petition was disposed of with directions to provide a bed and bedding; to permit alkaline water along with private food; to continue the existing attendant arrangement; to ensure appropriate ambulance availability in medical emergencies; and to permit fortnightly visits by Dr. Sachit Bhola. All prior judicial orders relating to the petitioner’s medical facilities were directed to continue operating.

Title: Asharam Alias Ashumal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2541/2026

Citation: [2026:RJ-JD:26707]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. R.S. Saluja with Mr. Arpit Surana Saluja, Mr. Yashpal Singh Rajpurohit, Mr. Bharat Sain, Mr. Aaditya Dangi

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG with Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, Dy.G.A., Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore