My happiness definitely knows just no bounds to read that in a most historic move coming after 78 years of independence with far reaching implications, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Sukanya Shantha vs Union of India & Ors in Writ Petition (C) No. 1404 of 2023 and cited in 2024 INSC 753 in the exercise of its civil original jurisdiction that was pronounced as recently as on October 3, 2024 while making it clear that caste-based discrimination in prisons would not be tolerated has sent out a clarion call to put a full stop and end caste based discrimination that has been going on rampantly even after 78 years of independence and so also to do away totally with caste-based stereotypes in jail manuals when it came to the division of labour in prison barracks. The Apex Court even registered a suo motu case to monitor the issue. It warned States in no uncertain terms that they would be certainly held liable if any caste discrimination is found taking place in prisons. One hopes fervently that now finally there will be a permanent full stop to caste based discrimination in jails as directed so very commendably by the Apex Court in this leading case!
At the very outset, this notable judgment authored by Hon’ble CJI Dr Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud for a Bench of Apex Court comprising of himself, Hon’ble Mr Justice JB Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr Justice Manoj Misra sets the ball in motion and puts things in perspective by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The petitioner, Sukanya Shantha, a journalist, wrote an article “From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System”, which was published on 10 December 2020. The article highlighted caste-based discrimination in the prisons in the country. The petitioner has sought directions for repeal of the offending provisions in State prison manuals. By an order dated 10 July 2024, judgment was reserved. We have heard a broad diversity of viewpoints from across India. Besides counsel for the petitioner and the intervenor, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) of India appeared for the Union of India. The States of Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Orissa, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu appeared through counsel.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 14 that, “The Constitution of India is an emancipatory document. It provides equal citizenship to all citizens of India. The Constitution is not just a legal document, but in India’s social structure, it is a quantum leap. In one stroke, it gave a dignified identity to all citizens of India. On 26 January 1950, the Constitution eliminated the legality of caste-based discrimination, thereby raising the human dignity of our marginalised communities.”
Most remarkably, the Apex Court mandates in para 23 propounding that, “The Constitution thus stands as a testament to the fight against historical injustices and for the establishment of an egalitarian social order. It aims to prevent caste-based discrimination. This commitment is not limited to preventing discriminatory actions by the State alone. It extends to the actions of citizens and private entities as well. It empowers the State to enact appropriate legislation or take executive measures to tackle caste-based discrimination. At the same time, it mandates the decision-makers to take every step to end discrimination in Indian society. The pervasive influence of caste necessitates continuous efforts to ensure equality and justice for all citizens. The manifestations of caste are too numerous to exhaustively enumerate. (Isabel Wilkerson, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, Penguin Random House (2020), p. 167). They can manifest in various forms and across different sectors of society, from education and employment to social interactions and access to resources. As has been observed:
“Continued to be attributed typically to the rural hinterlands and assumed to be limited only to the discussions on reservation policy and electoral politics, caste has mutated and diversified during the past three decades. Today, its presence is visible in urban housing, its markets and businesses, higher educational institutions, and public sector offices as well as the private sector working spaces, which were projected to be secular and privilege class over caste, and the various socio-economic and political institutions that interface with everyday lived experiences.” (Rahul Choragudi, et al, Caste Matters in Public Policy: Issues and Perspectives, Routledge (2024), Reprint, p. 2).
The fight against caste-based discrimination is not a battle that can be won overnight; it requires sustained effort, dedication, and the willingness to confront and challenge societal norms that perpetuate inequality. When faced with practices of caste-based discrimination, this Court must take an active stand. In entertaining the current petition, this Court is making its contribution to the ongoing struggle to dismantle caste-based discrimination.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 144 that, “Discrimination against the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Denotified Tribes has continued in a systemic manner. Remedying systemic discrimination requires concrete multi-faceted efforts by all institutions. In discharge of their role, courts have to ensure that while there should be proper implementation of the protective legislation such as the PoA Act, there should not be unfair targeting of members from marginalized castes under various colonial-era or modern laws. With this nuanced approach, we shall now examine the prison manuals.”
Quite significantly, the Bench postulates in para 160 that, “It is clear from the above discussion that caste was used as a factor of classification in prisons. However, this does not have any effect on examining the validity of the impugned provisions. In fact, it suggests that the colonial administrators were open to even adopting discriminatory social practices to not upset the oppressor castes. The upholding of caste differences by the British inside the prisons reflected their overall support to legitimizing the law of caste. However, this Court cannot adopt the approach taken by the colonial administrators. The impugned provisions shall be examined on the basis of principles laid under the Constitution.”
Most forcefully, the Bench underscores in para 175 expounding that, “The tendency to treat members of denotified tribes as habitual to crime or having bad character reinforces a stereotype, which excludes them from meaningful participation in social life. When such stereotypes become a part of the legal framework, they legitimize discrimination against these communities. Members of the denotified tribes have faced the brunt of colonial caste-based undertones of discriminating against them, and the prison Manuals are reaffirming the same discrimination. Discrimination against denotified tribes is prohibited under the ground of “caste” in Article 15(1), as the colonial regime considered them as belonging to separate hereditary castes.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 180 that, “Refusal to check caste practices or prejudices amounts to cementing of such practices. If such practices are based on the oppression of the marginalized castes, then such practices cannot be left untouched. The Constitution mandates an end to caste discrimination and untouchability. The provision that food shall be cooked by “suitable caste” reflects notions of untouchability, where certain castes are considered suitable for cooking or handling kitchen work, while others are not. Besides, the division of work on the basis of caste is a practice of untouchability prohibited under the Constitution.”
Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then concludes by most commendably directing and holding in para 231 that, “In light of the discussion, we issue the following directions:
(i) The impugned provisions are declared unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. All States and Union Territories are directed to revise their Prison Manuals/Rules in accordance with this judgment within a period of three months;
(ii) The Union government is directed to make necessary changes, as highlighted in this judgment, 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;
(iii) 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. All other references or definitions of “habitual offenders” in the impugned prison manuals/rules are declared unconstitutional. In case, there is no habitual offender legislation in the State, the Union and the State governments are directed to make necessary changes in the manuals/rules in line with this judgment, within a period of three months;
(iv) The “caste” column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts’ prisoners’ registers inside the prisons shall be deleted;
(v) 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;
(vi) This Court takes suo motu cognizance of the discrimination inside prisons on any ground such as caste, gender, disability, and shall list the case from now onwards as In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India. The Registry is directed to list the case after a period of three months before an appropriate Bench;
(vii) On the first date of hearing of the above suo motu petition, all States and the Union government shall file a compliance report on this judgment;
(viii) The DLSAs 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. The DLSAs and the Board of Visitors shall submit a joint report of their inspection to the SLSAs, which shall compile a common report and forward it to NALSA, which shall in turn file a joint status report before this Court in the above-mentioned suo motu writ petition; and
(ix) The Union government is directed to circulate a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union territories within a period of three weeks from the date of delivery of this judgment.”
Author Bio
