The Supreme Court, on Thursday, October 3, struck down discriminatory provisions of the Prison Manuals of several states, which perpetuated caste-based discrimination in prisons. The Prison Manuals of several states like Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh had provisions to assign jobs to the inmates based on their caste. These provisions allowed the prison authorities to assign cleaning and sweeping work to inmates from the marginalised castes, while the “upper castes” were assigned to work as cooks. The court said that this was “unconstitutional.”
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the verdict in a public interest litigation filed by journalist Sukanya Shantha seeking the court’s directions to repeal discriminatory provisions from the Prison Manuals and Rules. The journalist filed the PIL based on her award-winning story ‘From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System’.
The bench observed that the prison manuals directly discriminate by asking higher castes to prepare food and cooking while lower castes for cleaning work. Even if caste is indirectly mentioned, phrases like ‘menial’ and ‘accustomed’ discriminate against the groups, they said.
The court directed all the states and union territories to delete the “caste” column and any references to caste in undertrial and convicts, prisoners registers inside the prisons, and revise their prison manuals and rules in accordance with the judgement within a period of three months.
The bench also said that it is taking suo motu cognizance of the discrimination inside prisons on any ground such as caste, gender, disability, and would list the case as ‘In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India’, and directed the registry to list the case after a period of three months. All the states, as well as the Union government, are directed to file a compliance report before the court when the case is listed.
The court also took exception to the tendency of officials treating members of denotified tribes as “habitual” to crime or having bad character. The bench said that it reinforces a stereotype, which excludes them from meaningful participation in social life. “When such stereotypes become a part of the legal framework, they legitimise 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,” the court said.
The bench also said that when caste prejudices manifest in institutional settings like prisons, they might create further restrictions on the personal development and reformation of individuals from marginalised communities. “When Prison Manuals restrict the reformation of prisoners from marginalised communities, they violate their right to life,” the court said and added that the ‘inherent dignity’ of prisoners from marginalised castes are violated by the discriminatory provisions in the manuals.
Stating that the fight against caste-based discrimination was not a battle that can be won overnight, the court said that 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 said.
Petitioner Sukanya had argued that various State prison manuals blatantly sanctioned unconstitutional practices, which are violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution of India. She also highlighted that caste-based discrimination continues to persist in the prisons in the country with respect to: (i) the division of manual labour; (ii) segregation of barracks; and (iii) provisions that discriminate against prisoners belonging to Denotified tribes and “habitual offenders”. She also submitted that the Model Prison Manual of the Union government was inadequate when it came to addressing caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons.
The Union government, on the other hand, contended that prisons are a state subject, and that the Union can do nothing more than issuing an advisory. Further, the states of Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Orissa, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu also appeared before the court in the case.