INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court in India through its landmark verdict in Sukanya Shantha v.Union of India and Ors. prohibited caste-based discrimination within prison walls and directed states to reconstruct its prison manuals that date back to the colonial era, perpetuating caste prejudices and biases within three months.
The petitioner, Sukanya Shantha, an award-winning journalist whose 2020 triumphant article ‘From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System’ formed the basis of the plea. It was highlighted by former CJI DY Chandrachud that had it not been for Sukanya Shantha’s report, the injustice may have never come to light.
Dr BR Ambedkar expressed concern regarding prevailing discrimination in the last constituent assembly meeting. This concern holds even today. It is disheartening to observe places of rehabilitation and reform rehearsing these discriminations. The state which is duty-bound to ensure indiscrimination is witnessed failing to uphold these constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court affirmed that caste-based division of labour, segregation of barracks according to caste pyramids, incarceration of individuals from de-notified tribes as ‘habitual offenders’, untouchability in correctional facilities and discriminatory prison manuals are oppressive to fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14,15,17,21 and 23 of the Indian Constitution.
DISCRIMINATORY MANUALS
The court directed the Union and the State governments to revise the necessary changes in the prison manual in line with this judgment.
The rules mentioned under Prison Manuals is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in to the extent that they benefit a specific section of marginalized members of caste-identity, and disparate burdens on prisoners of that particular caste.
It reasoned that the prison manuals that are meant to follow unbiasedness to guide the population in their rehabilitation period are entirely discriminative against marginalized communities. Acting to the advantage of certain castes, it uplifts traditional caste roles.
The usage of phrases like “cooks of suitable caste” and “Communities accustomed to performing menial work” promotes discrimination.
According to the Committee on Prison Discipline 1838, “if a man of ‘higher caste’ is forced to work at any trade, it would ‘disgrace him’ and his family would be viewed under cruelty”. Within the prison, the caste hierarchy was followed as it was practised outside the prison.
As a result, these provisions do not merely stigmatize marginalized castes but reinforce social hierarchies that contravene the constitutional right – right against discrimination. Furthermore, it stimulates a feeling that these communities are ill-suited for dignified and proficient work.
LEGACY OF DISCRIMINATION: VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 15
The court mandated deleting of caste columns and any references to caste in registers of undertrials and convicts maintained in prisons.
Elaborating further, the court rejected the position upheld by the Madras High Court in C. Arul v The Secretary to Govt. However, it accepted the reasoning that the prison authority is required to place prisoners of different communities to separate blocks to avoid any community clash and eliminate caste-abased rivalries prevalent in the district. The reasoning mirrors the US logic to legalise race-based segregation: separate but equal.
The court asserted that Article 15(1) embedded in the COI envisions a society free from caste prejudices. While caste-based classifications are permissible under certain provisions of Article 15(4) they are just regulated to promote social justice and grant benefits to the victims of caste discrimination.
With a view to furthering that court proclaimed prison administration must maintain order without employing caste-based segregation of barracks.
SCAVENGER CLASS
By way of Article 17, our constitution prohibits ‘manual scavenging’ and rejects untouchability. It disrupts the very core of the caste system, which is squarely rooted in discriminatory notions of purity and pollution.
The provision that kitchen work should be handled by those who are at the top of caste pyramids i.e. ‘suitable caste’ is synonymous with to practice of untouchability. Consequently, these caste injustices amount to the cementing of such practices.
Against this backdrop, the court held that the “Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, which prohibits manual scavenging, has a binding effect in prisons as well”.
ELIMINATING CASTE PREJUDICES UNDER ARTICLE 21
The Supreme Court ruled that a particular section of caste expected to accustom to certain designated menial tasks while incarcerated highlights prejudices, biases and chauvinism which is ultra vires the fundamental right Article 21embedded in the Constitution of India.
This impugned rule fosters the occupational immobility of specific sections of prisoners belonging to certain castes. The rule that stipulates people from the Mehar or Hari Caste should be assigned the task of sweeping is discriminatory. Such provisions re-affirms the colonial era governing the post-colonial world.
Referring to Article 21, the court upheld prisoners are also entitled to the right to live with dignity. In Shabnam v. Union of India, the Court pronounced the aforesaid principle that “human dignity should be preserved even when a prisoner is sentenced to death”. Through this, it declared that incarcerated are entitled to live with parity, without being subordinated to caste prejudices that obstruct their personal growth which is intrinsic to human dignity.
CASTE-BASED DIVISION LABOUR
It was expected from communities placed bottom of the caste hierarchies to carry through with their customary occupations in jail. To assign labour, based on caste backgrounds rob individuals of their freedom to do work out of their choice. Such provision clearly conflicts with Article 14, thus, entrenching social hierarchies.
This inequitable classification within the prison system leads to prejudiced distribution of labour. While marginalized communities are assigned honourable tasks, marginalized communities are forced to perform undesirable work as if these individuals are inherently befitted to low-status labour. To prevent this kind of exploitation, Article 23 was incorporated which envisages the prohibition of exploitative practices in labour work for which the state is duty-bound to take effective measures to interdict such violations.
THE CONTINUED TARGETING OF DENOTIFIED TRIBES AS ‘HABITUAL OFFENDERS’
Another prejudicial practice was against denotified tribes who were assumed to be criminals solely based on their birth. This is nothing but classifying the entire tribe. As a result, prison manuals referred them to as ‘habitual offenders’ implying members of Denotified tribes. Moreover, the terms and concepts that distinguish inmates based on “habit”, “custom”, “superior mode of living” and “natural tendency to escape” etc. are unclear and indefinite.
In line with this scrutiny, the police were to ensure that members of denotified tribes are not subjected to arbitrary arrest as laid down in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2014) and Amanatullah Khan v The Commissioner of Police, Delhi (2024) .
MODEL PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ACT, 2023
The purpose of this act was to do away with the manifestations of colonial legislation that were based on outdated relics. So, to tune with contemporary modern needs, a correctional ideology was needed.
According to the Ministry, the Model Act is “a comprehensive document which covers all relevant aspects of prison management, viz. security, safety, scientific & technological interventions, segregation of prisoners, special provision for women inmates, taking appropriate action against criminal activities of prisoners in the prison, grant of parole and furlough to prisoners, their education, vocational training and skill development, etc. It also includes the provisions for ‘free legal aid’ to the prisoners following provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 and the relevant Standing of Procedures.
Echoing correctional measures, the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) and Board of Visitors were directed to jointly conduct regular inspections formed under this model.
In addition to issuing this directive, the court also asked the Centre to make the necessary changes in the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 within three months as well as to circulate a copy of this judgement to the chief secretaries of all States and Union Territories within three weeks from the date of delivery of this judgement.
CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE OF SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY
As authored by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, “More than 75 years since independence, we have not been able to eradicate the evil of caste discrimination.” Viewed over its lengthy period of operation, it demands an urgent approach to eradicate existing inequalities and prevent the miscarriage of justice to hold a better future for India. In this regard, the court took suo moto cognizance of this case in ‘In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India’ to be listed in the same.
Words, without action, would mean nothing. It is with this hope we need to uphold the constitutional value of equality.
After all, the “bounds of caste are made of steel”– “Sometimes invisible but almost always inextricable.” But not so strong that they cannot be broken with the power of the Constitution.
Author(s) Name: Kriti Tyagi (SVKM’S Jitendra Chauhan College of Law , Mumbai University)
