Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra gave slew of directions prohibiting caste-based discrimination in prisons.                    

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Sukanya Shantha v Union of India & Ors. 

What was the Background of Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors. Case? 

• The petitioner in this case is a journalist, Sukanya Shantha who wrote an article “From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System”. 
• The article highlighted the discrimination based on caste in the prisons in the country. 
• The petitioner by way of the present writ had come to the Court to seek directions to repeal the offending provisions in the State prison manuals. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The impugned provisions in this writ petition were as follows: 
  • Prison Act, 1984: The Court clarified that this legislation was not under challenge, but this Act helped in understanding the background of prison manuals/rules. 
  • Prison Manuals/Rules: There were several prison manuals and rules under challenge in this case including Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, 2022, Madhya Pradesh Jail Manual, 1987 among several others.   
• The Court in this case allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions: 
  • The Court held that the impugned provisions are unconstitutional as being violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and Article 23 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
    • The Court directed all the States and Union Territories to revise their Prison Manuals/Rules in accordance with this judgment within 3 months. 
  • Further, the Union Government was also directed to address caste-based discrimination in the Model Prison Manual, 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 within a period of three months. 
  • References to “habitual offenders” in the prison manuals/Model Prison Manual shall be in accordance with the definition provided in the habitual offender legislation enacted by the respective State legislatures, subject to any constitutional challenge against such legislation in the future.  
  • The “caste” column in undertrial/convicts’ prisoners’ register inside the prisons shall be deleted. 
  • The Police is directed to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi (2024) to ensure that members of Denotified Tribes are not subjected to arbitrary arrest 
  • The Court took suo moto cognizance of this discrimination in jails and listed the case as In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India. The Registry was also directed to list the case within 3 months. 
  • The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and the Board of Visitors formed under the Model Prison Manual 2016 shall jointly conduct regular inspections to identify whether caste-based discrimination or similar discriminatory practices, as highlighted in this judgment, are still taking place inside prisons. Further, the report regarding the same shall be filed.

What is Caste Based Discrimination in the Prison Manuals ?

• The Court in this case observed that the colonial administrators adopted discriminatory social practices inside the prison not to upset the oppressor castes. 
• Caste was used as a ground for differentiating prisoners. 
• The Court overruled the explanation rendered by the Madras High Court in the case of C. Arul v. The Secretary to Government (2014) where the High Court accepted the explanation that “the inmates belonging to different castes are housed in different blocks, in order to avoid any community clash, which is prevailing common in Tirunelveli and Tuticorin Districts.” 
• The Court held that it is the responsibility of the prison administration to maintain discipline inside the prisons without resorting to measures that promote caste-based discrimination. 
• The Court observed that adopting the logic accepted by the High Court would be similar to the argument given in the United States to legalize race-based segregation: separate but equal.  
• The Court held that the above philosophy has no place under the Indian Constitution. 
• The Court held that the discrimination of the inmates on the basis of “habit”, “custom”, “superior mode of living” and “natural tendency to escape” etc is unconstitutionally vague and indeterminate.  
• Only such classification that proceeds from an objective inquiry of factors such as work aptitude, accommodation needs, special medical and psychological needs of the prisoner would pass constitutional muster. 
• It is to be noted that the Prison manuals in question here used phrases such as “menial” jobs to be performed by castes “accustomed to perform such duties”. 
• Thus, the Court held that the classification based on obsolete understanding of caste lacks a rational nexus with the correctional objectives of classification in prisons.  
• Thus, the Court held that the Rules that discriminate based on caste are violative of Article 14 on account of invalid classification and subversion of substantive equality.

What is the Practice of Untouchability Envisaged in the Manuals? 

• It is to be noted that Article 17 of COI prohibits untouchability. 
• The Court observed that the notion that an occupation is considered as “degrading or menial” is an aspect of the caste system and untouchability. 
• It was observed that the reference to “scavenger class” is a practice of caste system and untouchability. 
• The provision in the manual that the food should be cooked by “suitable caste” reflects notions of untouchability where certain castes are considered suitable for cooking or handling kitchen work and others are not. 
• Also, the division of work based on caste is a practice of untouchability that is prohibited under the Constitution.

How are the Members of Denotified Tribes Discriminated Against by the Prison Manuals? 

• The tendency of treating denotified tribes as habitual to crime or having bad character reinforces stereotype against them and excludes them from participation in social life.  
• The discrimination against the denotified tribes was reaffirmed by the prison Manuals. 
• The term ‘habitual offender’ has been defined by the states under the habitual offenders laws adopted. Most of the States defined ‘habitual offender’ as a person who has been sentenced on conviction for at three occasions to a substantive term of imprisonment for any or more of the specified offences.  
• However, some prison manuals referred to ‘habitual offender’ to mean members of denotified or wandering tribes. 
• For instance, Rule 404 of the West Bengal Manual provides that a convict overseer may be appointed to be a night guard provided that “he does not belong to any class that may have a strong natural tendency to escape, such as men of wandering tribes”. 
• Thus, the Court directed the Union and State Government to make necessary changes in the prison manuals/rules in line with the judgment.

How is Caste Based Discrimination Linked with Article 21 of COI? 

• Article 21 of COI provides that no person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
• Article 21 envisages the growth of individual personality. Caste prejudices hinders the growth of personality of a person. 
• When the caste prejudices manifest in institutional settings like the prison, they create further restrictions on personal development and reformation of marginalized communities. 
• When prisoners from marginalized communities are subjected to discriminatory practices based on caste, their inherent dignity is violated. 
• Hence, the Court held that the provisions providing for caste based discrimination are violative of Article 21 of the COI.