Supreme Court Declares Caste-Based Discrimination in Indian Prisons Unconstitutional

New Delhi- In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has declared caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons unconstitutional. The ruling comes in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by journalist Sukanya Shantha in December 2023, who exposed rampant caste-based biases affecting inmates in prisons across 17 states.

The Court declared certain provisions in state prison manuals unconstitutional, finding them in violation of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. The verdict, delivered in Writ Petition (C) No. 1404 of 2023, mandates sweeping reforms in prison systems across the country to eliminate caste-based discrimination.

The case was initiated following the publication of Sukanya Shantha's article titled "From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System," in The Wire on December 10, 2020. Her findings brought to light the shocking realities of how prisoners were segregated and assigned labor tasks based on their caste in various states.

The first hearing of the PIL took place in January 2024, following which the Supreme Court issued notices to 17 states, seeking their responses. However, by July 2024, only five states—Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal—submitted replies to the Court.

Key Findings in the Report

Sukanya Shantha’s report provided vivid examples of how caste continued to govern the daily lives of prisoners:

• Rajasthan: Prisoners from specific castes were assigned duties corresponding to their caste status. For instance, prisoners from barber communities were tasked with cutting hair, Brahmin prisoners were given cooking duties, and those from the Valmiki caste were relegated to cleaning.

• Kerala: Prisoners classified as habitual offenders or repeat offenders were segregated. Certain notorious dacoits and thieves were treated differently and isolated from the general prison population.

• Uttar Pradesh: The Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, 1941, explicitly sanctioned caste-based practices, with prisoners from marginalized castes being made to perform manual labor such as cleaning and sweeping.

Swift Judicial Response: Court Demands Answers from States

In just seven months, the Supreme Court wrapped up the hearings on this critical issue, reflecting the urgency and gravity of the matter. By July 2024, the Court reserved its judgment, with Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Mishra presiding over the case.

During the hearings, the Chief Justice sharply criticized the Uttar Pradesh government after reading provisions from its Jail Manual, which still prescribed caste-based labor.

In a notable exchange, Rule 158 of the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual was scrutinized, revealing the practice of assigning scavenging duties to prisoners, which was explicitly tied to their caste.

The Chief Justice demanded an explanation, emphasizing that such practices violated fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, particularly the abolition of untouchability (Article 17) and the right to equality (Article 14).

The Verdict: Key Directions Issued by the Supreme Court

On October 3, the Supreme Court delivered its historic verdict. The bench, led by Chief Justice Chandrachud, unequivocally ruled that caste-based division of labor in prisons is unconstitutional. The Court further mandated that all state governments must revise their prison manuals within three months to eliminate any discriminatory provisions related to caste.

After hearing a wide range of viewpoints, the Court issued the following key directions to ensure compliance with constitutional principles:

1. Unconstitutionality of Impugned Provisions: The impugned provisions in state prison manuals have been declared unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), 17 (Abolition of Untouchability), 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), and 23 (Prohibition of Forced Labor) of the Constitution.

2. Revisions in Prison Manuals: All States and Union Territories have been directed to revise their prison manuals and rules in accordance with this judgment within a period of three months.

3. Union Government’s Responsibility: The Union government has been instructed to amend the Model Prison Manual, 2016, and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, to address caste-based discrimination within three months.

4. Definition of "Habitual Offenders": References to "habitual offenders" in prison manuals must adhere to the definition provided in state-specific legislation. In states lacking such legislation, the Union and state governments must revise their manuals to align with this judgment.

5. Removal of Caste Column: The caste column and any references to caste in undertrial and convicts’ registers inside prisons must be deleted across all states and Union Territories.

6. Protection for Denotified Tribes: The police have been directed to follow guidelines from the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi (2024) cases, ensuring that members of Denotified Tribes are not subjected to arbitrary arrests.

7. Suo Motu Cognizance of Prison Discrimination: The Court has taken suo motu cognizance of ongoing discrimination inside prisons based on caste, gender, and disability. The case, titled "In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India," will be listed after three months before an appropriate bench. All States and the Union government are required to file a compliance report on the judgment before the first hearing of the petition.

Also Read: