Breaking: Supreme Court Directs All States & UTs To Revise Prison Manuals; Says There Cannot Be Caste Discrimination Among Prisoners

The Supreme Court today directed all States and Union Territories to revise their prison manuals observing that there cannot be caste discrimination among prisoners.

The Court made the observation while dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, drawing attention to the ongoing caste-based discrimination in prison systems across various states. The petition highlighted that numerous state prison manuals continue to enforce rules and practices rooted in caste hierarchy, in clear violation of constitutional principles of equality.

The Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra has directed all states and Union Territories to revise their prison manuals in a period of three months.

At the outset, the CJI praised counsels for the petitioner. He remarked, "It was a very beautifully drafted petition by the lawyers, and I would like to thank the counsels who appeared. They gave us food for thought."

The Court said, "The judgment has been divided into various segments: 1. Criminal laws must not endorse pre-colonial or colonial philosophies, 2. Constitution of emancipation of equality and dignity, 3. History of India..."

On the prison manuals, the Court opined that "Caste cannot be used as an intelligible classification under Article 21. Caste cannot be used to discriminate against the inmates, the segregation would lead to animosity."

"Discrimination against SC, ST, and de-notified tribes has continued; courts have to ensure that while there is implementation of protective legislation, the court has to ensure that marginalized do not suffer. we have held that constitution recognizes SC ST for protective discrimination but caste cannot be used to discriminate against the marginalised and that it should not perpetuate discrimination against oppressed. There cannot be such discrimination among prisoners, and segregation among prisoners will not lead to rehabilitation. Such standards do not survive the test of intelligible differentia. Classification based on caste reduces prisoners to group identity, and reformation is stultified," the Court observed. 

The court passed the following directions:

1. The impugned provision are declared unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. All states and Union Territories are directed to revise their prison manuals and rules in accordance with this judgment in a period of 3 months. 

2. The union government is directed to make necessary changes as highlighted in this judgment to address caste based discrimination in the model prison manual of 2016 and the model prisons and correctional services act of 2023, within a period of 3 months. 

3. References to 'habitual offenders' in the prison manuals or model prison manual shall be in accordance with the definition provided under the habitual defender legislation inacted by the respective state legislators, subject to constitutional challenge against legislation in the future. All other references and definitions of 'habitual offenders' in the impugned prison manuals and rules are declared unconstitutional. In this case, there is no 'habitual offender' legislation in the state.  The union and state governments are directed to make the necessary changes in the manuals or rules within a period of 3 months.

4. The caste column and any references to caste to undertrial or convict, shall be deleted. 

5. The police is directed to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar and Amanatullah Khan to ensure that members of denotified tribes are not subjected to arbitrary arrest.

6. This court takes suo moto cognizance of the discrimination inside prisons, on any grounds such as caste, gender, disability and shall list the case from now on as : In Re: Discrimination inside prisons in India. The registry is directed to list the case after a period of 3 months, before the appropriate bench. 

7. On the first date of hearing of the above suo moto petition, all states and UTs shall file a compliance report on this judgment.

8. The District legal services authority and the board of visitors prison manuals of 2016, shall jointly conduct regular inspections to identify caste-based discrimination or similar discriminating practices highlighted in this judgment. They shall submit a joint report of the inspection. It shall be forwarded to the National Legal Services Authority, which shall file a joint-report before this court in the above mentioned suo-moto writ petition.

9.  The Union government is directed to circulate a copy of this judgment to the chief secretary of all the States/UTs, within a period of 3 weeks. 

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the aforementioned directions. 

Pertinently, on July 10, the Court had reserved its verdict in the writ petition. Earlier, in January this year, the Bench had sought responses from the Centre and 11 states, including Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, on the PIL.

The petitioner, Sukanya Shantha, a journalist and author of an investigative report on caste discrimination in Indian prisons, sought appropriate directions to bring these prison manuals and associated practices in line with the Constitution.

The PIL filed through AoR Prasanna S. outlined that caste realities in India’s carceral system perpetuate a range of discriminatory practices, including the allocation of prison labor and segregation of barracks based on caste. It argues that certain state prison manuals explicitly sanction such caste-based division of labor and segregation, which further entrenches social inequalities in prison settings.

"The caste realities of the carceral system in India entails a range of discriminatory practices including the division of labour determined on the basis of caste hierarchy, and caste based segregation of barracks. The Prison Manuals of various states sanction such discrimination and forced labour on the ground of caste," the petition read. 

One such example cited is from the Rajasthan Prison Rules 1951, which, until recently, mandated the assignment of sanitation duties to prisoners based on caste. Rule 37 specified that "Mehtars" were responsible for maintaining cleanliness in latrines, while Rule 67 designated only "Brahmins or sufficiently high caste" prisoners as eligible to cook food for others. The petitioner notes that such provisions reinforce caste-based hierarchies, even in confined spaces like prisons.

The petition further stated, "The separation of Thevars, Nadars, Pallars who are allotted different sections in Palayamkottai Central Jail in Tamil Nadu provides a glaring instance of caste-based segregation of barracks. The justification for this segregation has also been upheld by the Madras High Court in C.Arul v. The Secretary to Government as a means to prevent caste rivalries. This judgment also requires to be reviewed by this Court."

The petitioner’s investigative report, titled "From Segregation to Labour: Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System", published in The Wire in December 2020, brought these issues to light. The report, which received a Pulitzer Center grant, prompted suo motu action by the Rajasthan High Court, resulting in amendments to certain discriminatory provisions in the state’s prison manual. However, the petitioner contends that such unconstitutional practices are not limited to Rajasthan, pointing out that several other states still have similar provisions in place.

The West Bengal Jail Code, for instance, is noted for prescribing caste-based labor designations. Rule 793 stipulates that barbers must belong to the "A class" caste, while sweepers should be selected from the "Mether" or "Hari" caste. Additionally, Rule 1117 mandates that cooking responsibilities be assigned to prisoners of high caste, while denotified tribes continue to face discrimination in these settings. "The West Bengal Jail Code lays down that work in the prison should be designated by caste, such as cooking work will be undertaken by dominant castes and sweeping work shall be undertaken by people from particular castes," the petition stated.

Cause Title: Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 1404/2023]

Click here to read/download the Judgment