Source: The Indian Express 

Introduction 

Recently the Supreme Court has removed rules from prison manuals that were unfair to people from lower castes. These old rules made prisoners do different jobs based on their caste, like making people from certain communities clean toilets while others got to cook food. The Court held that cleaning and sweeping to the marginalized castes and assigning cooking to higher-caste prisoners is nothing but direct caste discrimination and a violation of Article 15. 

What is the Background and Court Observation Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India? 

Background: 

• On October 2024, the Supreme Court of India struck down several rules in state prison manuals that reinforced caste differences and targeted marginalized communities. 
• The case originated from a plea filed by the journalist who pleaded discriminatory provisions in prison manuals of various states. 
• The affected states included Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh. 
• The rules in question dealt with the classification of prisoners and assignment of work based on these classifications. 
• Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud authored the 148-page decision, which found that these manuals perpetuated caste-based labor divisions and reinforced social hierarchies. 
• Specific examples of discrimination included: 
  • The Madhya Pradesh Jail Manual, 1987, assigning latrine cleaning work to prisoners from the 'Mehtar' caste (a Scheduled Caste community).  
  • The West Bengal Jail Code Rules, 1967, dividing work explicitly based on caste, such as food preparation and distribution. 

Court Observation: 

• The Supreme Court declared all the discriminatory provisions and rules unconstitutional. 
• The Court directed states and union territories to revise their prison manuals within three months. 
• The Centre was also directed to make necessary changes to address caste discrimination in the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the draft Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023 within the same period. 
• The Court's decision aimed to protect the fundamental rights of prisoners and eliminate caste-based discrimination in the prison system. 
• The Court declared the impugned provisions in various state prison manuals unconstitutional, finding them violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution of India. 
• The Court held that assigning cleaning and sweeping work to marginalized castes while allowing higher castes to do cooking constitutes direct discrimination under Article 15(1) of the Constitution. 
• The Court observed that provisions allowing for caste-based segregation in prisons reinforce caste differences and hinder rehabilitation, violating fundamental constitutional rights. 
• The Court ruled that the notion of certain occupations being "degrading or menial" and assigning them based on caste is an aspect of the caste system and untouchability, which is unconstitutional. 
• The Court found that the prison manuals perpetuate stereotypes against marginalized castes, which demean and stigmatize these communities while reinforcing harmful societal hierarchies. 
• The Court emphasized that no social group is born as a "scavenger class" and that forcing certain groups to undertake jobs considered 'menial' based on notions of birth-based purity and pollution is unconstitutional. 
• The Court directed the deletion of caste columns in prison registers, recognizing that such categorization perpetuates discrimination and violates prisoners' fundamental rights. 

How Does the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 Continue to Influence Modern Criminalization and Discrimination Against Marginalized Communities in India? 

• Historical Foundation: 
  • The Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 allowed the British to declare entire communities as "criminal tribes" 
  • This was based on the stereotype that certain marginalized communities were "born criminals" 
  • These declarations were often applied to already marginalized castes and tribes 
• Key Restrictions: Designated tribes were:  
  • Forced to settle in specific locations 
  • Subjected to constant surveillance 
  • Could be arrested without warrant 
  • Required to register with authorities 
  • Had restricted movement (needed passes to travel) 
  • Children could be separated from parents and placed in "reformatory schools" 
• Post-Independence Legacy: 
  • Though the Criminal Tribes Act was repealed in 1952, its stereotypes persisted in prison manuals 
  • The document mentions that modern prison rules in various states continue to:  
    • Classify between "habitual" and "non-habitual" criminals 
    • Allow discretionary designation of denotified tribe members as "habitual criminals" 
    • Define "habitual criminals" based on stereotypes about certain behaviors (robbery, theft, etc.) 
    • Use these classifications to determine prisoner treatment (e.g., West Bengal's A/B classification) 
• Reinforcement of Stereotypes: 
  • The manuals perpetuate the colonial notion that criminality is hereditary or linked to caste/tribal identity 
  • They give authorities discretionary power to label individuals based on their community background 
  • This continues the discriminatory practices established during colonial rule, despite constitutional protections against such discrimination 
• Legal : 
  • These practices conflict with constitutional principles of equality 
  • They perpetuate social stigma and discrimination against certain communities 
  • The document suggests these practices effectively continue the colonial system of caste-based criminalization 

How do Constitutional Provisions Uphold the Rights of Prisoners Against Caste-Based Discrimination? 

• Right to Equality (Article 14) 
  • The Court established: 
    • Caste-based classification is only permissible for benefiting discrimination victims 
  • Prison segregation by caste is unconstitutional as it: 
    • Reinforces caste divisions 
    • Denies equal opportunity for rehabilitation 
    • Impedes reform possibilities 
• Right Against Discrimination (Article 15) 
  • The Court identified and prohibited: 
    • Direct discrimination: Assigning menial tasks to marginalized castes while reserving preferred work for higher castes 
    • Indirect discrimination: Perpetuating stereotypes about capabilities based on caste identity 
• Abolition of  Untouchability (Article 17) 
  • The Court: 
    • Identified prison rules perpetuating untouchability 
    • Specifically cited Uttar Pradesh regulations assigning "degrading" work based on caste 
    • Declared that categorizing work as "menial" perpetuates caste discrimination 
• Right To Life with Dignity (Article 21) 
  • The Court affirmed this right: 
    • Encompasses personal growth and development 
    • Includes the right to overcome caste barriers 
    • Is violated by rules that: 
      • Restrict reformation of marginalized prisoners 
      • Deprive them of dignity 
      • Deny expectations of equal treatment 
• Prohibition of Forced Labour (Article 23) 
  • The Court ruled: 
    • Imposing "impure" or "low-grade" work on marginalized communities constitutes forced labor 
    • Rejected division of labor into "honorable" and "undesirable" categories based on caste 
• This comprehensive judgment recognizes and addresses both overt and subtle forms of caste discrimination in prisons, affirming that constitutional protections extend fully to all prisoners regardless of their caste or community background. 
• The Court's ruling emphasizes the need for prison reforms that ensure equal treatment, dignity, and rehabilitation opportunities for all inmates, free from caste-based discrimination and stereotyping. 

Conclusion  

The Court has given states three months to update their prison manuals and remove these discriminatory rules. This decision is important because it protects prisoners' rights to equality, dignity, and freedom from caste-based discrimination, helping to break down old caste barriers in Indian prisons.