Rajasthan HC Orders Bed, Alkaline Water for Asharam; Holds Medical Facilities Cannot Lapse on Disposal of Appeal
Justice Sanjeet Purohit held that prison accommodations granted on medical grounds survive the conclusion of appellate proceedings and directed restoration of facilities for the 85-year-old POCSO convict.
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, on 4 June 2026, directed that all medical facilities and accommodations previously extended to Asharam Alias Ashumal — an 85-year-old convict serving a life sentence at Central Jail, Jodhpur — must continue without interruption, regardless of the fact that his criminal appeal has now been decided. Justice Sanjeet Purohit, sitting as Vacation Judge, further directed the jail administration to provide a bed and bedding, and to permit alkaline drinking water alongside privately sourced food. The court's central holding was that the disposal of an appeal furnishes no legal basis for withdrawing facilities that were granted to address a prisoner's established medical condition. The judgment draws on a line of Supreme Court decisions on prisoner rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Conviction, Appeal, and the Withdrawal of Facilities
Asharam was tried in Sessions Case No. 116/2016 (152/2013) before the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan. On 25 April 2018, the trial court convicted him of offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
He challenged the conviction before a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 123/2018. That appeal was decided on 27 May 2026: the conviction was partly upheld and Asharam was directed to undergo imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. He subsequently surrendered before jail authorities.
The grievance that prompted the present writ petition was straightforward. During the long pendency of the trial and the appeal, courts had, from time to time, permitted specific facilities — privately sourced food, visits by chosen doctors, wheelchair use, and an attendant — having regard to his age and deteriorating health. Once the appeal concluded and he surrendered, those facilities were withdrawn. Asharam filed S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2541/2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking their restoration and certain additional accommodations.
A Trail of Earlier Judicial Directions
The court catalogued the prior orders at some length, because they formed the foundation of its reasoning.
As far back as 24 February 2014, a coordinate bench of this court, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 01/2014, directed jail authorities to permit Asharam to procure food, clothing, and bedding from private sources, subject to the conditions in Rule 223 of the Rajasthan Prison Rules, 1951, with food permitted twice a day.
On 20 January 2015, the Supreme Court, in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3852/2014, allowed Dr. Arun Kumar Tyagi of Arogyadham Hospital, Jodhpur, to visit Asharam in jail and provide necessary treatment.
During the appeal's pendency, the Division Bench, on 10 August 2020, modified the food arrangement to once every day, requiring an affidavit from the supplier and an undertaking from Asharam accepting responsibility for any adverse health effects from privately procured food.
On 21 March 2024, the Division Bench directed that Asharam's treatment be carried out at Arogyadham Center, Jodhpur, in police custody, observing that the right to appropriate treatment is a fundamental right. On 26 July 2024, the same bench permitted visits by Dr. Sachit Bhola, a specialist of Asharam's choice, as and when required. On 27 August 2025, in D.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 485/2025, while rejecting a prayer for extension of interim bail on the basis of a Medical Board report certifying that hospitalisation was not required, the court permitted use of a wheelchair and deployment of one attendant within the jail premises.
Justice Purohit noted that these directions were acted upon over a considerable period and that no material had been placed before the court indicating any misuse.
Constitutional Framework: Prisoners Retain Article 21 Rights
Before addressing the individual prayers, the court set out the constitutional principles it considered applicable.
It referred to D. Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1975) 3 SCC 185, where the Supreme Court held that convicts are not, by mere reason of conviction, stripped of all fundamental rights, and that even a convict is entitled to the right guaranteed by Article 21 that he shall not be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
The court then turned to Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 494, where Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer rejected the notion that prison walls insulate State action from constitutional scrutiny. That judgment recognised that prisoners remain entitled to humane treatment and dignified living conditions, including adequate food, clothing, bedding, and other incidents of a life compatible with human dignity.
In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608, the Supreme Court held that the right to life is not confined to mere animal existence and includes the right to live with human dignity along with bare necessaries such as adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter.
Drawing these threads together, Justice Purohit observed that the State, having assumed complete control over the life, liberty, and physical well-being of an incarcerated individual, bears a corresponding obligation to ensure that conditions of confinement remain consistent with constitutional guarantees under Article 21. At the same time, the court acknowledged that this mandate cannot be applied in a manner that undermines institutional discipline or parity of treatment among similarly situated inmates. The task, it said, is to balance the existing framework of prison administration against the constitutional obligation to prevent avoidable impairment of a prisoner's life, health, or dignity.
Core Holding: Appeal Disposal Does Not Extinguish Medical Entitlements
The court's principal legal conclusion was direct. The entitlement of a prisoner to receive necessary medical facilities cannot be made contingent upon the procedural stage of criminal proceedings. Whether a person is an undertrial, a convict whose appeal is pending, or a convict whose appeal has been decided, the State's obligation to ensure adequate medical care and humane treatment continues unabated.
The facilities that had been extended to Asharam were not granted because his appeal was pending. They were granted because of his exceptional medical condition. Since that condition had not improved — and no material was placed before the court showing any substantial improvement — there was no justification for discontinuing them merely because the appellate proceedings had attained finality.
The court accordingly directed that all medical facilities, attendant support, and other accommodations permitted under earlier orders of the Supreme Court and the High Court shall continue to remain available to Asharam for the entire period he remains in custody, subject only to future modification upon a substantial change in his medical condition or upon orders of a competent court.
Additional Facilities: What Was Granted and What Was Declined
Beyond restoration of existing facilities, Asharam sought several additional accommodations. The court examined each separately.
Bed and bedding. AIIMS, Jodhpur reports dated 22 August 2025 and 18 October 2025 recorded that Asharam experiences difficulty rising from a sitting position and suffers from osteoporosis of the spine and hip. A certificate dated 3 June 2026 from Dr. Arun Kumar Tyagi recorded generalised muscle weakness, osteoporosis, and severe difficulty in standing up, exposing him to an increased risk of falls and fractures. The jail administration argued that no other inmate in the same ward was being provided a separate bed and that differential treatment was impermissible. The court rejected that argument. The principle of equality, it held, cannot be applied in a manner that disregards established medical needs of a particular prisoner. No contrary medical opinion had been placed on record by the respondents. The Jail Superintendent, who was present in person, did not controvert the assertion that bedding had in fact been provided to Asharam during his earlier period in custody. The court directed the respondents to provide a bed and bedding.
Food and alkaline water. The arrangement for privately sourced food once a day, operating under the order dated 10 August 2020, was already being complied with. The court found no reason to interfere with that arrangement and declined to restore the earlier twice-a-day frequency. However, it ordered that alkaline drinking water — recommended in a certificate dated 31 May 2026 by Dr. Sachit Bhola as preferable given Asharam's diagnosed ailments — shall be permitted alongside the food, subject to the same conditions and safeguards that govern the food supply. The Assistant to the Additional Advocate General had fairly submitted that the prison administration had no objection to supply of alkaline water along with food.
Attendants. Asharam sought two attendants of his own choice. The court noted that the earlier directions already contemplated provision of attendants and that the compliance report confirmed two attendants had been provided from among jail inmates. The prayer for attendants of his own choosing was declined. The court did, however, direct that prison authorities should, as far as practicable, assign the responsibility to inmates who are willing and capable of rendering the necessary assistance.
Private ambulance with ICU. This court had previously, on 2 February 2024 in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 212/2024, declined a request for an ambulance equipped with cardiac equipment. The Assistant to the Additional Advocate General submitted that two ambulances equipped with oxygen cylinders and stretchers are already available in the jail, and that emergency ambulance services via the 108 helpline can also be availed. The court declined to grant a blanket permission for use of a private ambulance for every hospital visit. It directed instead that in the event of any medical emergency, prison authorities shall ensure availability of an appropriate ambulance considering the medical requirements of the situation, and that recourse to a privately arranged ambulance shall be open where circumstances so warrant, subject to security measures.
Temperature-controlled environment. Asharam relied on an AIIMS report dated 20 January 2025 advising that he should avoid exposure to extreme weather conditions. The respondents submitted that a cooler is available in the hospital ward of the jail and that Asharam could be shifted there when his condition requires. The court found no case made out for a separate temperature-control ward but directed that prison authorities remain sensitive to his condition and take appropriate steps, including shifting him to the hospital ward, should circumstances require.
Daily visits by treating doctor. Asharam sought daily visits by Dr. Sachit Bhola. The court noted that the order dated 26 July 2024 already permitted visits as and when required, and that the compliance report confirmed the latest such visit had taken place on 30 May 2026. Regular medical examinations by doctors at the jail dispensary were also ongoing, and Asharam had been taken to Arogyadham Hospital for treatment on 2 June 2026 in compliance with an order dated 7 November 2024. No material was placed on record to demonstrate that daily visits were medically required or that existing arrangements had proved inadequate. The court directed that visits by Dr. Sachit Bhola shall ordinarily be permitted once every fortnight, with prison authorities retaining discretion to permit additional visits in the event of emergent medical necessity.
Order
Justice Sanjeet Purohit disposed of S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2541/2026 on 4 June 2026 with the following directions:
(i) The respondents shall provide a bed and bedding for the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall be permitted to receive alkaline drinking water along with food supplied from private sources pursuant to earlier judicial directions; the conditions governing food supply shall apply equally to alkaline water.
(iii) The existing arrangement of two attendants from among jail inmates shall continue; the prayer for attendants of the petitioner's own choice is declined; prison authorities shall, as far as practicable, assign willing and capable inmates to the role.
(iv) In the event of any medical necessity, prison authorities shall consider making available an appropriate ambulance, including a privately arranged ambulance where circumstances so warrant, subject to security measures.
(v) No directions are issued regarding a temperature-control facility; prison authorities shall remain sympathetic to the petitioner's condition and take appropriate measures should circumstances require.
(vi) Visits by Dr. Sachit Bhola shall ordinarily be permitted once every fortnight; jail authorities may permit additional visits in emergent circumstances at their discretion.
(vii) All facilities, accommodations, permissions, and medical arrangements made available pursuant to earlier judicial orders shall continue to remain operative in accordance with the terms and conditions governing them.
All pending applications, including the stay application, were disposed of.