In a landmark judgment delivered by Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, and comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, the Supreme Court of India addressed the deep-rooted issue of caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons. The case, Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No. 1404 of 2023), dealt with unconstitutional practices that violate fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, including Articles 14, 15, 17, and 21. This historic decision sets the stage for significant prison reforms, ensuring equality and dignity for prisoners across the nation.
Background of the Case:
The petitioner, Sukanya Shantha, a journalist, filed a writ petition after her investigative article, “From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System,” exposed widespread caste-based discrimination within Indian prisons. The article highlighted how caste identities governed labour assignments, segregation of barracks, and discriminatory treatment toward prisoners belonging to denotified tribes and “habitual offenders.”
Several states, including Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Orissa, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu, were named as respondents for their respective prison manuals that allegedly institutionalized caste-based practices.
Key Legal Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Article 14 (Equality Before the Law): The Court observed that caste-based segregation and labour practices in prisons amounted to a violation of Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law.
2. Non-Discrimination Under Article 15: The Court examined the discriminatory provisions of state prison manuals under Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
3. Abolition of Untouchability (Article 17): The Court held that caste-based segregation and forced labour in prisons perpetuated the practice of untouchability, which is expressly prohibited by Article 17 of the Constitution.
4. Right to Life and Dignity (Article 21): The Court reaffirmed that prisoners, like all citizens, are entitled to dignity, and any practice that reduces prisoners to their caste identity violates Article 21’s guarantee of the right to live with dignity.
Court’s Observations:
Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, delivering the opinion of the Court, emphasized that the Constitution’s vision of equality must extend to every citizen, even within the prison system. He remarked:
“Prisons should not be spaces where historical wrongs are perpetuated. They must embody the values of reform, rehabilitation, and, most importantly, equality. The continued practice of caste-based segregation and labour violates the core constitutional principles of dignity and equality.”
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra concurred, noting that the persistence of caste-based practices in prisons highlights the failure of state governments to fully implement constitutional guarantees.
The Court also criticized the outdated provisions of various state prison manuals, which allowed for the classification and segregation of prisoners based on their caste. It was observed that:
“These provisions reflect remnants of colonial and pre-colonial social orders, and are fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution’s vision of equality.”
Decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, directed the states of Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Orissa, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu to immediately amend their prison manuals to ensure that no provisions allowing caste-based discrimination remain in force.
Specific Directions:
1. Abolition of Caste-Based Labor Assignments: The Court held that the practice of assigning labor based on caste, where Dalits and members of denotified tribes were forced into menial tasks such as cleaning or cooking, must cease immediately. The Court declared that all labor assignments should be made on the basis of equality and non-discrimination.
2. Elimination of Caste-Based Segregation in Barracks: The Court directed that any form of segregation within prison barracks on the basis of caste must be immediately abolished, with prisoners treated as equals in all aspects of prison life.
3. Model Prison Manual: While noting that the Model Prison Manual, 2016 had made some strides toward prison reform, the Court held that it had failed to address the deep-rooted caste-based issues. The Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to work with state governments to revise the Model Prison Manual to fully eliminate caste-based discrimination in prisons.
4. Monitoring and Compliance: To ensure compliance with these directives, the Court ordered that state governments submit periodic reports detailing the steps taken to revise their prison manuals and implement the Court’s directions. Failure to comply would result in continued judicial oversight.
Article 17 and the Abolition of Untouchability:
The Court’s judgment was especially critical of caste-based segregation, equating it to modern-day untouchability. The Court observed:
“The very existence of caste-based segregation within prisons amounts to a violation of Article 17. The Constitution explicitly abolishes untouchability, and the continuation of such practices in state-run institutions is not only illegal but an affront to human dignity.”
Article 21 and the Right to Dignity:
The Court reaffirmed that even prisoners are entitled to the right to life with dignity. The judgment stated:
“The right to dignity is not forfeited upon incarceration. Caste-based discrimination within prisons reduces human beings to their caste identity, stripping them of their inherent dignity. This practice is incompatible with the values of the Constitution and must end immediately.”
