Supreme Court Strikes Down Caste Discrimination in Prisons: Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 03 October 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 753
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J B Pardiwala, J, Manoj Misra, J

Can a prison system perpetuate caste-based discrimination? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a landmark judgment, examining the constitutionality of discriminatory practices within the Indian prison system. The court scrutinized various state prison manuals that sanctioned practices violating fundamental rights. This judgment seeks to dismantle these practices and ensure equality for all prisoners, regardless of their caste. The bench comprised of Chief Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

Case Background

The case originated from a writ petition filed by Sukanya Shantha, a journalist, who highlighted caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons through her article “From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System,” published on 10 December 2020. The petitioner sought the repeal of discriminatory provisions in state prison manuals, arguing that these provisions violated Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner highlighted that caste-based discrimination continues to persist in prisons with respect to the division of manual labour, segregation of barracks, and provisions that discriminate against prisoners belonging to denotified tribes and “habitual offenders”.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court heard arguments from a broad range of viewpoints across India. Dr. S. Muralidhar, Senior Advocate, represented the petitioner, emphasizing the unconstitutional nature of caste-based discrimination in prisons. Ms. Disha Wadekar presented a chart of provisions from different state prison manuals highlighting various forms of discrimination. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, the Additional Solicitor General, argued that the Union government had already issued guidelines prohibiting caste discrimination in prisons. Several states, including Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Orissa, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu, also presented their arguments through counsel. Mr. Anuj Saxena, counsel for the intervenor, prayed for the deletion of the “caste” column from prisoner registers.

Legal Framework

The judgment extensively discusses the following constitutional provisions:

• Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
• Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
• Article 17: Abolishes “Untouchability” and forbids its practice in any form.
• Article 21: Protects the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to live with dignity.
• Article 23: Prohibits traffic in human beings and forced labor.

The Court emphasized that these articles are not just aspirations but must be lived realities. The Constitution is envisioned as a “social document” and a “modernizing force,” embodying “humanitarian sentiments.” The interpretation of the Constitution is not static and must evolve with time to give recognition to a broader spectrum of rights.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Submissions:

• State prison manuals sanction unconstitutional practices violating Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution.

• Caste-based discrimination persists in prisons through:

  • Division of manual labor
  • Segregation of barracks
  • Discrimination against Denotified Tribes and “habitual offenders.”

• The Model Prison Manual, 2016, inadequately addresses caste discrimination, except in kitchens.

• The Home Departments of Respondent States should clarify the definition of “Habitual Offenders” to prevent misuse against denotified tribes.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The Ministry of Home Affairs prepared the Model Prison Manual for the Superintendence and Management of Prisons in India, 2003 and The Model Prison Manual, 2016, which explicitly prohibits caste and religion based discrimination practices.

• The Ministry of Home Affairs issued an advisory on 26 February 2024 to all states and UTs to ensure that State Prison Manuals/Prison Acts do not contain discriminatory provisions.

• Prisons fall under the domain of the States under Entry 4, List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

• The State of West Bengal stated that discriminatory rules are not in force and a proposal for their deletion/amendment has been sent.

Innovativeness of the argument: The petitioner innovatively used the constitutional framework to challenge the practices prevalent in the prison system, highlighting the systemic nature of caste discrimination.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the existing provisions in various State prison manuals sanctioning caste-based discrimination are violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution of India?
2. Whether the Model Prison Manual, 2016, adequately addresses issues of caste-based discrimination inside prisons?
3. Whether the definition of “Habitual Offenders” in various prison manuals is misused against persons from denotified tribes in prisons?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India [1950 SCR 869]* and subsequent cases to establish that classification under Article 14 should not be arbitrary and must have a reasonable nexus with the object sought.
• The Court used E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1974) 4 SCC 3]* and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248]* to emphasize the principle of non-arbitrariness and reasonableness in state action.
• The Court referred to Shayara Bano v. Union of India [(2017) 9 SCC 1]*, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [(2018) 10 SCC 1]*, and Joseph Shine v. Union of India [(2019) 3 SCC 39]* to adopt the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness to invalidate discriminatory laws.
• The Court followed National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India [(2014) 5 SCC 438]* to recognize the dignity and aspirations of social groups that have faced exclusion from equal rights.
• The Court cited Lt. Col. Nitisha v. Union of India [(2021) 15 SCC 125]* to recognize indirect and systemic discrimination.
• The Court applied Sunil Batra (I) v. Delhi Administration [(1978) 4 SCC 494]* and Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration [(1980) 3 SCC 488]* to emphasize that prisoners do not lose their human rights.
• The Court used People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India [(1982) 3 SCC 235]* and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [(1984) 3 SCC 161]* to discuss the scope of “begar” and “forced labour” under Article 23.
• The Court relied on State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia [(1995) 3 SCC 221]* and subsequent cases to underscore the significance of the PoA Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to uphold the constitutional values of equality, dignity, and freedom. The Court emphasized the importance of reversing the philosophy of the colonial regime, which was founded on the subordination of the individual to the state. The court was concerned with the systemic nature of caste discrimination, which has been perpetuated through various state prison manuals and rules. The Court also highlighted the need to ensure that the fundamental rights of all prisoners are protected, regardless of their caste or social status. The court noted that the prison system should be a space for reform and rehabilitation, not a place where historical injustices are perpetuated.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected alternative interpretations that sought to justify the discriminatory practices, emphasizing that the Constitution mandates substantive equality and prohibits any form of discrimination based on caste. The final decision was reached by a comprehensive analysis of the constitutional provisions, historical context, and the need to ensure justice and dignity for all prisoners.

Reasons for the decision:

• The impugned provisions perpetuate caste-based discrimination.
• They violate fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
• They reinforce historical injustices and social hierarchies.
• They undermine the reformative objectives of the prison system.

“The Constitution mandates the replacement of fundamental wrongs with fundamental rights.”

“The Constitution is a constantly evolving instrument has to be flexible to reach out to injustice based on untouchability, in any of its forms or manifestations.”

“To live is to live with dignity.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• State prison manuals must be revised to eliminate caste-based discrimination.
• The Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 must be amended to address caste discrimination.
• The definition of “habitual offender” should not be misused to target denotified tribes.
• Caste columns and references to caste must be removed from prison records.
• Police must avoid arbitrary arrests of members of denotified tribes.
• Legal service authorities and boards of visitors must conduct regular inspections to ensure compliance.

Potential future impact: This judgment has the potential to transform the prison system in India by ensuring that all prisoners are treated equally and with dignity. It also sets a precedent for addressing systemic discrimination in other institutions. The judgment also mandates the need to revisit the habitual offender laws in the country.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. All States and Union Territories are directed to revise their Prison Manuals/Rules in accordance with this judgment within three months.
2. The Union government is directed to make necessary changes to address caste-based discrimination in the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 within three months.
3. References to “habitual offenders” in prison manuals/Model Prison Manual shall be in accordance with the definition provided in the habitual offender legislation enacted by the respective State legislatures. All other references or definitions of “habitual offenders” are declared unconstitutional.
4. The “caste” column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts’ prisoners’ registers inside the prisons shall be deleted.
5. The Police is directed to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi (2024) to ensure that members of Denotified Tribes are not subjected to arbitrary arrest.
6. This Court takes suo motu cognizance of the discrimination inside prisons on any ground such as caste, gender, disability, and shall list the case from now onwards as In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India.
7. All States and the Union government shall file a compliance report on this judgment on the first date of hearing of the suo motu petition.
8. The DLSAs and the Board of Visitors shall jointly conduct regular inspections to identify whether caste-based discrimination or similar discriminatory practices are still taking place inside prisons.
9. The Union government is directed to circulate a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union territories within a period of three weeks.

Specific Amendments Analysis

The judgment mandates specific amendments to the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023. These amendments include:

• Explicit prohibition of caste-based discrimination in all aspects of prison management.
• Removal of any provisions that allow for the segregation of prisoners based on caste.
• Ensuring that all prisoners have equal access to work opportunities, regardless of their caste.
• Elimination of any discriminatory practices against Denotified Tribes and “habitual offenders.”
• Inclusion of mechanisms for regular monitoring and reporting of caste discrimination in prisons.
• The definition of “habitual offender” needs to be reviewed and clarified to prevent its misuse against denotified tribes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India (2024) is a landmark decision that strikes down caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons. It reaffirms the constitutional values of equality and dignity, ensuring that all prisoners are treated with respect, regardless of their caste or social status. The judgment mandates significant reforms in prison management and sets a precedent for addressing systemic discrimination in other institutions. This decision is a step towards a more just and equitable society, where fundamental rights are guaranteed to all, including those incarcerated. The judgment also highlights the evolving nature of constitutional jurisprudence and the need to constantly strive for a more inclusive and egalitarian society. This judgment will have a long-lasting impact on the prison system in India and will hopefully lead to a more humane and just system of incarceration.