New Delhi: Ending “institutional systemic discrimination” in India’s prisons, the Supreme Court Thursday declared all the provisions in prison rules that perpetuate caste discrimination as unconstitutional.
Asserting that prisoners too have the right to live with dignity, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud also directed the Centre to amend its Model Prison Manuals to address objectionable rules that give rise to stigma and violate human dignity of those incarcerated in jails.
The court has given three months to the Centre and states to adopt the changes suggested by it to put a stop to colonial-era practices that do not align with the present constitutional framework promoting equality in all realms of life.
The existing prejudices in prison rules are with respect to division of manual labour, segregation of barracks and provisions that discriminate against prisoners belonging to denotified tribes and habitual offenders. In terms of these rules that govern prison administration in all states of India, menial jobs in jails are not allotted to prisoners, who belong to a specific caste that is not accustomed to them.
Similarly, the task of cooking is reserved for prisoners from a “suitable caste”, while manual scavenging is assigned to those from denotified tribes.
Having analysed the philosophy of the Constitution, its principles and the historical background of caste-based practices, the court said that in a post-constitutional society, “the law must take affirmative steps to achieve equal protection of law to all its citizens”.
Therefore, it said, the State promoting such inequalities, even amongst prisoners, is the “highest form of discrimination”. Reminding the State of its constitutional obligation, the court added that the State “is expected to prevent discrimination, and not perpetuate it”.
Amongst a slew of directions, the court ordered that the “caste column” and any reference to caste in official records shall be deleted.
It took suo-motu cognisance of the discrimination inside prisons on grounds of caste, gender, disability, and directed the listing of the case after three months before an appropriate bench. It also ordered the district legal services authority and the board of visitors formed under the central model prison manual to jointly conduct regular inspections to identify discriminatory practices prevailing in jails.
The court’s judgment came on a petition filed by journalist Sukanya Shanta. Appearing for her, senior advocate S. Muralidhar highlighted that various state prison manuals sanction blatant unconstitutional practices that violate Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23 of the Constitution.
According to the petitioner, Centre’s Model Prison Manual fails to address the provisions that promote caste discrimination inside prisons other than the discrimination in kitchens and that it is not “model” when it comes to addressing caste discrimination.
In response, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the model rules explicitly prohibit caste and religion-based practices. She said the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in February this year issued an advisory to the states, asking them to ensure that their respective prison laws do not contain discriminatory provisions.
Also Read: SC’s split verdict in 1995 custodial death case: 4 points the 2 judges differed on
Constitutional violations
The Constitution mandates that laws enacted in the colonial era should align with its provisions. Advising against the approach adopted by colonial administrators, the court said that caste can be an intelligible factor if it has been used to create protective policies for the marginalised castes, provide them protective discrimination and promote equitable distribution of resources.
Caste as a factor of classification in prisons is unsustainable in view of the current constitutional framework as it perpetuates discrimination. This is against Articles 14 and 15. While Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, Article 15 says that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
In the context of prisons, the Supreme Court said, valid classification must be a functional classification. Division of prisoners on the basis of caste is invalid because it lacks a rational nexus with the correctional objectives of classification in prisons. Inmates are entitled to fair treatment that promotes rehabilitation, and classification of any kind must be geared towards the same, it said.
Caste-based segregation of prisoners would not lead to rehabilitation and would, instead, reinforce differences or animosity that ought to be prevented in the first place. It would stultify their reformation and they would be presumed to discharge stereotypical occupational tasks, it added.
“Classification based on caste reduces the individual prisoner to a group identity and does not leave room for an objective assessment of their correctional needs,” remarked the judgment, holding it violative of Article 14.
Assignment of menial tasks, such as cleaning and sweeping, to the marginalised castes, while allowing high castes prisoners to cook is a direct discrimination under Article 15(1), the court said. Some prison manuals describe these jobs as those that are performed by castes “accustomed to perform such duties”.
Though such a phrase may appear to be facially neutral, reference to the term “marginalised caste”, given their historical systemic discrimination, is impermissible under the Constitution. Bias is embedded in such phrases as they “disproportionately harm marginalised castes, reinforce social hierarchies and deepen caste-based labour divisions.”
The notion that an occupation is considered as “degrading or menial” is an aspect of the caste system and untouchability. No social group is born as a “scavenger class”, but they are forced to undertake certain jobs that are considered “polluting” based on the “notions of birth-based purity”, the court said.
Stereotyping of prisoners resembles a form of untouchability, as they assign certain negative traits to specific groups based on identity, perpetuating their marginalisation and exclusion. This affects their dignity and it should be overcome to achieve the mandate under Article 21 that guarantees all citizens “right to live with dignity”.
Rules that, for instance, stipulate that “sweepers shall be chosen from the Mehtar or Hari caste”, or from “Chandal or other low castes”, designate the enumerated castes for the work in issue and are “indifferent to the potential of the individual prisoner to reform”, the court said.
Since Article 23 prohibits the State from imposing compulsory service for public purpose, the court struck down the prison rules on the ground that breached the said provision of the Constitution. The court said Article 23 was incorporated into the Constitution to protect the members of oppressed castes from exploitative practices.
However, the prison rules, by exploiting the labour of the oppressed castes, perpetuate the same injustice to guard against which Article 23 was inserted into the Constitution, it added.
Lacunae in Model Prison Manual
The court noted that Centre’s Model Prison Manual—issued in 2016 and then 2023—suffered from a lack of measures to stop caste-based segregations in jails.
While the 2016 manual defines “habitual offender” as “a prisoner classified as such in accordance with the provisions of applicable law or rules”, the court said that several prison manuals use the phrase to refer to people from denotified or wandering tribes. This, it added, classifies people from denotified tribes in prison without any basis.
Moreover, the manual does not refer to the provisions of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, which prohibits manual scavenging.
Holding the 2013 central law binding even on prisons, the bench said that manual scavenging or hazardous cleaning of a sewer or a septic tank inside a prison shall not be permitted.
The 2023 manual, the bench said, was completely silent on division of work based on caste, even though it empowered the officer-in-charge of the prison to utilise the services of prisoners for “administration and management of the prisons”. It directed the Centre to add a provision to explicitly ban segregation of work based on caste.
Even the “habitual offender” phrase in the 2023 manual is vague and overbroad, the court said, adding that it can be used to declare anyone as a habitual offender.
The court, therefore, directed the states to redefine the phrase in their respective manuals in accordance with the definition provided in their laws related to “habitual offenders”.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)