Introduction
This analysis delves into the comprehensive ruling of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India & Other[i]. The petition highlights deep-rooted caste-based discrimination within Indian prison systems, bringing attention to practices that segregate prisoners and assign labour based on their caste backgrounds.
The judgment tackles a range of constitutional issues, including violations of the right to equality (a. 14), the prohibition of discrimination (a. 15), the abolition of untouchability (a. 17), the right to life with dignity (a. 21), and forced labour (a. 23). Sukanya Shantha (‘Petitioner’) urged the Court to compel State governments to amend their prison manuals and eliminate discriminatory practices rooted in casteism.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner is an investigative journalist who wrote a detailed exposé on the entrenched caste-based discrimination within the Indian prison system. Her article, titled From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System, published on 10.12.2020, formed the basis for the writ petition. The article documented several cases where prisoners from marginalized castes, especially denotified tribes and ‘habitual offenders,’ were segregated in prisons and subjected to menial labour in a manner that was reminiscent of the caste-based division of labour in Indian society.
The Petitioner argued that such practices violated the basic tenets of the Constitution of India. Despite the existence of the Model Prison Manual, 2016 (‘Manual’), which offered some progressive measures to improve prison conditions, many State prison manuals continued to perpetuate caste-based discriminatory practices. The Petitioner claimed that prison officials, guided by obsolete and discriminatory provisions in these prison manuals, were engaging in practices like segregating prisoners based on caste, forcing marginalized prisoners into menial labour such as cleaning toilets, and according preferential treatment to prisoners from upper castes.
The Petitioner also pointed out that while advisories had been issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (‘MHA’) to eliminate such practices, they were inadequately enforced. Thus, the Petitioner’s plea sought a directive to the States and Union Territories (‘UTs’) to comprehensively revise their prison manuals and bring them in line with constitutional values, particularly the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in as. 14, 15, 17, and 21 of the Constitution of India (‘Constitution’).
The Respondents, including the Union of India, through the MHA, contended that the prison reforms were already being pursued and that the Manual had been issued to States for adoption. They asserted that the Petitioner’s claims were exaggerated and that States had been advised to take appropriate measures to eliminate discriminatory practices. Nonetheless, the Petitioner’s core argument remained that advisory notices were insufficient and that the State prison manuals needed radical reform.
Held
In its comprehensive ruling, the Supreme Court issued the following detailed directions:
Declaration of Unconstitutionality: The Court declared the impugned provisions of the prison manuals across various States and UTs unconstitutional. It held that these provisions violated Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution, which collectively protect against discrimination, ensure equality, abolish untouchability, uphold the right to life with dignity, and prohibit forced labour. Consequently, the Court directed all States and UTs to revise their prison manuals within three months to bring them in conformity with the Constitution.
Reform of Model Prison Manual: The Court directed the Union Government to amend the Manual and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, to explicitly address caste-based discrimination within prisons. These changes were also required to be implemented within three months. The revisions were to include more robust provisions aimed at eliminating all forms of caste-based discrimination in the allocation of prison labour and the treatment of prisoners.
Reform on Habitual Offenders: The Court tackled the issue of ‘habitual offenders’, declaring that any reference to habitual offenders in prison manuals must adhere strictly to the definition provided in habitual offender legislation enacted by the respective State legislature. In States without such legislation, the Court struck down all references to habitual offenders in the prison manuals as unconstitutional. The States and the Union Government were directed to make the necessary changes in their prison rules within three months.
Eradication of Caste Classification in Prison Registers: The Supreme Court directed the removal of all references to castes in undertrial and convict registers maintained by prisons, including the ‘caste’ column in prisoners’ registers. The Court emphasized that any form of caste-based classification perpetuates systemic discrimination and has no place in a constitutional framework that values equality and human dignity.
Implementation of Arrest Guidelines: The Court referred to its previous rulings in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar[ii] and Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi[iii], reiterating that the police must follow strict guidelines when arresting members of Denotified Tribes. These guidelines were aimed at ensuring that such individuals are not subjected to arbitrary arrests, which perpetuate the historical discrimination faced by these marginalized communities.
Suo Moto Case on Discrimination in Prisons: Taking cognizance of the pervasive discrimination faced by prisoners, the Supreme Court initiated a suo moto case titled In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India. The Court emphasized the need to continually monitor and address discrimination within the prison system based on caste, gender, and disability. The Registry was directed to list this case after a period of three months for further oversight by an appropriate bench.
Mandatory Compliance Reports: The Court ordered all States and the Union Government to submit compliance reports on implementing this judgment by the first hearing of the suo motu case. This measure aimed to ensure accountability and transparency in the steps taken by the authorities to address the systemic discrimination highlighted in the petition.
These directions mark a significant shift in addressing caste-based discrimination within the prison system. They emphasize the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional values of equality and human dignity across all facets of governance, including correctional facilities.
Our Analysis
The Supreme Court’s decision is monumental. It tackles not only the immediate issues of caste-based discrimination in prisons but also delves into the larger question of social justice and human dignity within the criminal justice system. This judgment reflects the Court’s commitment to ensuring that even those incarcerated are entitled to their fundamental rights and are treated as equal citizens under the law.
Constitutional Mandates and Social Justice
The Court’s reliance on as. 14, 15, 17, and 21 of the Constitution highlights the fundamental rights that prisoners retain, even while serving sentences. By focusing on a. 17 of the Constitution, which explicitly abolishes untouchability, the Court sent a clear message that caste-based practices in any form, whether inside or outside prison walls, are unconstitutional. This ruling reinforces the broader constitutional goal of social equality and justice.
The decision also expands the scope of a. 21 of the Constitution by recognizing that the right to life and personal liberty includes the right to dignity and humane treatment. This judgment reminds prison authorities that their powers must be exercised within the bounds of the law and the Constitution, ensuring that prisons are not spaces where societal prejudices are replicated or reinforced.
Impact on Prison Reforms and the Criminal Justice System
The directive to the States and UTs to amend their prison manuals is crucial in addressing systemic discrimination. While the Manual provided a framework for reform, its adoption by States has been slow and inconsistent. The Court’s mandate will compel States to actively engage in reform and ensure that the manuals are updated and implemented in letter and spirit.
Moreover, the Court’s decision to establish prison oversight committees ensures accountability. These committees, composed of judicial officers, will serve as a check against continued discrimination. The creation of these bodies also highlights the need for constant monitoring and enforcement, ensuring compliance with the Court’s ruling, which is not merely symbolic but actualized in practice.
Caste Discrimination and Labor in Prisons
One of the most critical aspects of the judgment is its stance on the division of labour within prisons. The Court’s ruling that labour assignments must be based on a voluntary or rotational system rather than caste is a significant departure from India's deeply entrenched caste-based division of labour. In prisons, this division often mirrors the outside world, with prisoners from marginalized castes being forced into degrading tasks like cleaning latrines. In contrast, those from upper castes receive less strenuous assignments. The Court’s order directly challenges this practice and mandates a more equitable system.
The Court’s observation that forced or discriminatory labour violates a. 23 of the Constitution, which prohibits forced labour, further strengthens the argument against the imposition of menial tasks based on caste. The judgment clarifies that all prisoners must have equal opportunities for rehabilitation and work without discrimination.
Broader Societal Implications
The Supreme Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications beyond the confines of prison walls. It signals the need for systemic changes across all institutions where caste-based discrimination persists. By focusing on prisons, which are often overlooked in discussions on social justice, the Court has brought attention to the plight of marginalized communities within one of the most controlled environments in the country.
This judgment reminds us that prisons are microcosms of society and that the fight for equality must extend to every facet of life. The Court’s emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration as the core objectives of prison reform aligns with international standards of human rights, moving away from the colonial-era mindset of prisons as mere punitive spaces.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case is a watershed moment in Indian prison reform. The judgment reinforces the constitutional guarantee of equality and dignity for all, including those incarcerated. By addressing the systemic caste-based discrimination prevalent in prisons, the Court has taken a significant step towards ensuring that the criminal justice system does not perpetuate the very social injustices it is meant to address. The directives to amend prison manuals, establish oversight committees, and revise labour practices are expected to have a transformative impact on the prison system and beyond. This judgment represents a crucial advancement in protecting fundamental rights and India's ongoing struggle for social justice.
End Notes
[i] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2694.
[ii] 2014 INSC 463.
[iii] 2024 INSC 383.
Authored by Sanyam Aggarwal, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.