Facts of the case
Around in night of 5th May, wrestler Sagar Rana of 23 years was murdered. One of the eye witnesses Sonu Mahal, in an interview with the Aaj Tak, Sonu told the news channel that Sushil Kumar, a renowned wrestler had bitten Sagar relentlessly and driven away. He informed that they both were first kidnapped and later on beaten recklessly. They were hospitalized however Sagar died. Sushil Kumar was arrested by the Delhi Police after putting a price of Rupees One Lakh for the person who wouldgive any information of the whereabouts of Sushil Kumar. The wrestler is kept in a separate cell due to security reasons.
After the arrest, a request application was filed by the Sushil’sCounsel on his behalf seeking supplements and special foods claiming that he is a renowned wrestler who wants to continue his wrestling career, therefore to maintain his physical strength, his body requires such supplements as he cannot sustain without them. The counsel relied upon a Bombay High Court Judgment in Asgar Yusuf Mukadam v. the State of Maharashtra. It also relied upon Sections 31 and 32 of the Prisoner’s Act 1894 and Section 49 and 41, Chapter 9 of Delhi Rules, 1988. The Additional Public Prosecutor and Jail Superintendent stated that the desire for special food will be discriminatory for other prisoners. If such a request is allowed it will create a situation of request from other prisoners as well. The requirement shall not be decided on the basis of past life. Also, such rules for food and facilities are governed according to Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018.
The main issue before the court was that whether such kind of special treatment should be given to the applicant only because he wants to live his life as a wrestler even when the diet provided by the Prison Authority is balanced and healthy without any Discrimination?
Court rejecting the application, stated that according to the Rule of Law, every person is equal in the eyes of Law irrespective of their caste, class, religion, sex, etc. the Right of Equality under Part III of the constitution is a basic feature which implies that no special privilege to be given to any person due to his rank, status, etc. The court further on this point emphasized that Law should be equally administered, that like should be treated. It was observed by the court that no disclosure was made by the applicant for any participation in the near future.In addition, the court also emphasized the point of Delhi Rules, 1988 and Delhi Prison Act, 1894, and judgment passed under that on which the counsel of the applicant relied upon is repealed as Delhi Prison Rules, 1988 and Delhi Prison Act, 2000, came into force respectively. The court dismissing the request stated that it is not maintainable as the supplements are not in need but are the desire of the applicant. If allowed, it would not be according to the basic principle of the Rule of Law. It further stated that as there are some applications, which are still pending before the Jail Authority, thus, such authority is directed to inform the court about such a trial of these applications or any application filed or decided in the future, as per rules.