| Case Name | Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors. |
| Citation | 2024 INSC 753 |
| WP Number | Writ Petition (C) No. 1404 of 2023 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India – Civil Original Jurisdiction |
| Bench | Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud (CJI), J.B. Pardiwala J., Manoj Misra J. |
| Date of Order | 3 October 2024 |
| Nature | Writ Petition (Constitutional Challenge to Prison Manuals) |
Parties
- Petitioner: Sukanya Shantha (journalist/activist).
- Respondents: Union of India and several State Governments including Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Orissa, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu.
- An intervenor was also heard on behalf of affected communities. Represented by Anuj Saxena, who sought deletion of the “caste” column from prisoner registers
Facts
The Petitioner had brought out a research-based article entitled “From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System” in December 2020 which highlighted how caste-based discrimination had been formalized in the prison system of India in various states. The article was based on a study of the State Prison Manuals and highlighted how caste hierarchies were codified by the prison authorities in their rules and regulations in violation of the constitutional provision.
Consequently, she had filed a writ petition under Article 32[1] of the Constitution seeking the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In the case, there were respondents in the form of the Union of India and the Governments of Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Orissa, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu.
Nature of the Discrimination Uncovered
The petition revealed three types of caste-based discrimination practiced in State Prison Manuals:
1. Caste-Based Distribution of Work Tasks: In State Prison Manuals in Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Andhra Pradesh, prisoners belonging to certain castes were allocated particular tasks within the prison. The menial and shameful labor, such as sweeping, cleaning of latrines, and manual scavenging, was confined only to lower caste and Scheduled Castes prisoners (Mehtar, Hari, and Chandal castes), while upper castes were tasked with cooking and supervisory functions.
2. Caste-Based Segregation in Barracks: Prisoners of different castes were segregated into separate barracks in various state manuals, perpetuating untouchability distinctions which the Constitution sought to end.
3. Persecution of Denotified Tribes: Some of the manuals targeted people belonging to Denotified Tribes (those who were labeled as “Criminal Tribes” during the colonial era) by labeling them as “habitual offenders” or people with a criminal tendency.
Among the challenged sections were Rule 289(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Prison Manual[2] (which confined menial labor to castes “accustomed” to performing such labor), Rule 741 and Rule 860 of the West Bengal Jail Code[3] (which required Mehtar or Chandal caste prisoners to perform the duties of sweepers only), and Rule 217, Rule 219 and Rule 201 of the prisons in Andhra Pradesh[4], Tamil Nadu[5] and Kerala[6] (which defined habitual offenders to include persons “by habit” belonging to a “wandering or criminal tribe”).
Issues Raised in the Case
- Whether caste-based labour assignments in prison manuals contravene Article 14 (equality before law) and violate Article 15(1) (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of caste)?
- Whether prison labor classification and segregation constitute “practice” of untouchability as per Article 17?
- Whether assignment of degrading labor to marginalized caste people without an individual assessment contravene Article 21 (right to life, personal liberty and rehabilitation)?
- Whether there are any deficiencies in the Model Prison Manual 2016 on caste discrimination or any other areas?
- Whether the definition of “habitual offenders” under State Manuals and the Model Prisons Act 2023 are constitutionally sound?
Contentions of the Parties
Petitioner (through counsels: Dr. S. Muralidhar & Ms. Disha Wadekar): The impugned rules do not stand alone as an anomaly but form a part of prison administration. They constitute a caste hierarchy and therefore infringe upon Articles 14[7], 15[8], 17[9], 21[10], and 23[11]. The Model Prison Manual 2016 takes care of discrimination only in kitchens, labour allocation, barrack segregation, and targeting of Denotified Tribes have remained untouched. The intervenor has further prayed for deleting “caste” column from prisoner records as it discriminates on the basis of caste and has no administrative utility at all.
Union of India (through Additional Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati): There were two Model Prison Manuals in 2003 and 2016 which were notionally non-discriminatory on the basis of caste and religion in kitchens. An advisory had been issued in February 2024 for deleting the discriminatory rules. The Union of India further stated that prisons come within the ambit of Entry 4 of List II of State List under Seventh Schedule.
State Governments: The state governments generally denied the active operation of the provisions or claimed that they were overridden by administrative instructions. It is significant to note that the State of West Bengal accepted the fact that the challenged regulations were not being operated and a proposal to delete them had been made.
Rationale
The Court reiterated the revolutionary nature of the Constitution of India. Quoting Granville Austin’s description of the Constitution as a “social document” and as “a modernizing instrument,” the Court ruled that as from 26 January 1950, the Constitution had destroyed the legal justification for caste-based discrimination and recognized the equal dignity of all citizens. This emancipatory philosophy enunciated by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Jaipal Singh Munda, H.J. Khandekar, and Dakshayani Velayudhan in the Constituent Assembly required that the State could not consider any citizen inferior.
In regard to Article 14, the twofold test propounded in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar[12], the Court observed that the impugned provisions failed in both parts. Expressions such as “accustomed to menial work”, “suitable caste” and “tendency to escape naturally” lack the element of ‘intelligible differentia’, since they serve as vague substitutes for caste discrimination without possessing any rational connection with the purpose of correction. Through the application of the principle of ‘manifest arbitrariness’ from Shayara Bano v. Union of India[13], the Court observed that irrational provisions violated Article 14. Correctional classification must take into account the requirements of an individual, his abilities and rehabilitation capacity and should not take into consideration his caste status.
According to Article 15, the Court noted cases of both direct and indirect discrimination. The case of direct discrimination due to caste-based assignment of sweeping and scavenging to marginalised communities. On the other hand, the case of indirect discrimination on account of facially neutral expressions such as “menial duties” assigned to those “accustomed” to them discriminatory language that discriminates against historically marginalised communities. Discrimination against Denotified Tribes was also considered within the “caste” category under Article 15(1).
The Court has extended the scope of the practice of untouchability under Article 17 beyond physical discrimination. The assignment of the jobs such as scavenging, cleaning latrines, and other such demeaning tasks purely on the basis of caste identity is termed “practice of untouchability.” The clause giving permission to upper caste prisoners to reject the food cooked by the lower caste prisoners amounts to untouchability which is explicitly forbidden by Article 17 along with the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
In regard to Article 21, It was held by the Court that right to life included the right to surmount caste restrictions and the right to be reformed. Assignment of demeaning jobs to prisoners merely on the ground of caste is violative of the right to life as it prevents them from achieving personal and occupational progress. Following the case of Sunil Batra (II) (1980)[14], the Court has held that “allocation of degrading labour” in prison is an infringement of liberty.
The Court held that the provision contained in Article 23 is one which has been made to take into account the caste element so as to safeguard the oppressed classes against exploitation in their employment. It has thus become the exploitation of the vulnerable position of prisoners from the marginalised castes due to their caste alone.
Defects Found
In State Prison Manuals, the use of vague and discriminatory language, classification based on caste rather than rehabilitative purposes, sanctioning of untouchability by providing for refusal of food, perpetuation of negative stereotypes that limit occupational mobility and, finally, unconstitutionally using the rationale behind the Criminal Tribes Act in labeling “habitual offenders” among the Denotified Tribe members without the necessity of any conviction.
In the Model Prison Manual 2016, there were 5 gaps have been highlighted,
- The prohibition of caste segregation is applicable only to women prisoners,
- The prohibition of caste discrimination in labor is limited to kitchen labor,
- The definition of “habitual offender” is circular and delegates the responsibility of defining it to discriminatory state legislations,
- There is a total absence of any reference to the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013
- Lack of any antidiscrimination clause in the powers of jail superintendent in assigning labor.
Under the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, it did not contain any provision whatsoever banning caste discrimination, despite granting power to the prison officer to make use of prisoner services. The term ‘habitual offender’ as defined in Section 2(12) “a prisoner committed to prison repeatedly for a crime” was unconstitutionally vague, having no minimum number of convictions and possibly applying to under-trials as well. The undue punishment (non-release of parole, confinement to high security ward, post-release monitoring) that followed from this vague definition created an easy platform for labeling Denotified Tribes.
Directions Ordered by the Court
The court declared all challenged provisions unconstitutional and ordered nine directives as follows:
- All states and UTs must modify their Prison Manuals in line with this judgment in three months’ time.
- The central government must modify the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023 to remove all identified caste discrimination provisions, in three months’ time.
- “Habitual offenders” defined in prison manuals shall be as per the definition provided in each state’s specific habitual offenders law; all vague and tribe-specific definitions in manuals are declared void and all such references in states that have not enacted habitual offender laws are hereby deleted.
- “Caste” column and all references to caste in under-trial and convicted prisoners registers must be deleted at once.
- Police must strictly follow the guidelines on arrests provided in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)[15] and Amanatullah Khan v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi (2024)[16] for avoiding arbitrary arrest of Denotified Tribe persons.
- The court exercised its suo motu jurisdiction over discriminatory practices in prisons based on all bases (caste, gender, disability) and converted the writ petition to supervisory petition under the caption “In Re: Discrimination in Prisons of India”.
- Compliance Reports are to be filed by all States and the Union at the first hearing of the suo motu petition.
- Prisons will be inspected by DLSAs and BoVs and the report will be submitted to SLSAs. Consolidated Status Report is to be filed by NALSA before the Court.
- Union Government will circulate the judgment to all Chief Secretaries of States and UTs in three weeks.
Inference
The judgment makes four constitutionally enduring contributions to Indian law. Firstly, it prioritizes substantive equality over formal equality, requiring consideration of concrete outcomes and effects on marginalized groups rather than mere presence of any classification. Secondly, it introduces institutional or systemic discrimination as a form of discrimination cognizable under the Constitution, thus recognizing that discrimination may be systemic, institutionalized within rules and procedures, and not necessarily perpetrated through specific individuals. Thirdly, it reinforces the primacy of constitutional morality over social morality, such that even very old and historically entrenched caste-based social practices are incapable of trumping fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Lastly, through conversion of the disposed petition into a suo motu case, the Court laid down continuing judicial oversight as an essential instrument for dealing with systemic discrimination.
As pointed out in conclusion by the Court: “The bounds of caste are made of steel, sometimes invisible but almost always inextricable. But not so strong that they cannot be broken with the power of the Constitution.” By Former CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
Akhil Kumar
Christ (Deemed to be University), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
[1] INDIA CONST. art. 32
[2] Uttar Pradesh Prison Manual r. 289(g) (2022) (India).
[3] West Bengal Jail Code Rules rr. 741, 860, (1967) (India)
[4] Andhra Pradesh Prison Manual r. 217 (India)
[5] Tamil Nadu Prison Manual r. 219 (India)
[6] Kerala Prison Manual r. 201 (India)
[7] INDIA CONST. art. 14
[8] INDIA CONST. art. 15, § 1
[9] INDIA CONST. art. 17
[10] INDIA CONST. art. 21
[11] INDIA CONST. art. 23 (Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour).
[12] State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75, [1952] 1 SCR 284 (India).
[13] Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 9 SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 4609 (India)
[14] Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (Sunil Batra II), (1980) 3 SCC 488, AIR 1980 SC 1579, [1980] 2 SCR 557 (India)
[15] Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273, AIR 2014 SC 2756, 2014 INSC 463 (July 2, 2014) (India).
[16] Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 5719 of 2023, 2024 INSC 383 (May 7, 2024) (India).