Caste Behind Bars: Comment On Supreme Court’s Judgement On Caste-Based Discrimination Across Prisons

-Justice Krishna Iyer

The Supreme Court’s landmark case Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India sheds light on the entrenched caste-based discrimination within India’s prison system, a pervasive issue that, while crucial to social reform, often remains overlooked. The judgment keenly drafted by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra draws attention to the continued influence of colonial-era laws that govern modern prisons, perpetuating archaic caste hierarchies in direct violation of constitutional principles. In this case comment, we delve into the historical context, colonial influences, the legal arguments put forth by both parties, the Court’s observations, and the judicial relief granted, with particular emphasis on the broader implications for prison reform in India.

India's prison system, like much of its legal and bureaucratic framework, is heavily influenced by colonial legacies. Under British rule, societal hierarchies—particularly caste-based divisions—were institutionalized as a method of control. The British administration, recognizing the deeply embedded caste system, formalized it into governance, seeking to maintain and further entrench these distinctions in order to strengthen their rule over India’s vast and diverse population.

In prisons, this colonial mentality led to a structured and discriminatory system that determined every aspect of a prisoner’s life, including labour assignments, living conditions, and even food distribution. Prisoners from so-called "lower" castes were relegated to menial tasks such as scavenging, cleaning, and sanitation work, while prisoners from "upper" castes were assigned more “dignified” roles like cooking or supervising others. These practices were codified in colonial-era prison manuals that created a rigid caste hierarchy within prisons, reflecting the social and economic inequalities outside prison walls.

Despite India’s independence and giving itself a constitution, the dark disdained practice persisted till today, became the heart of the Sukanya Shantha. The petition raised several key constitutional violations related to caste-based discrimination in the allocation of prison labour and the forced imposition of degrading tasks on lower-caste prisoners. Outdated state prison manuals, particularly in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, and Himachal Pradesh, retained provisions that institutionalized caste-based labour divisions. Such provisions directly contravened constitutional protections against discrimination and untouchability, violating fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

In addition to these violations, the petitioners in the case highlighted how these discriminatory practices undermined prisoners' rights under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life with dignity, and Article 23, which prohibits forced labour. They argued that subjecting prisoners to caste-based labour assignments not only demeaned their dignity but also amounted to forced labour, especially since prisoners from lower castes were coerced into performing tasks such as scavenging and sanitation work, tasks that other prisoners were exempted from due to their caste status.

While the Model Prison Manual introduced in 2016 sought to address some of these issues, many states had yet to implement its provisions. The slow pace of reform reflected a broader apathy toward modernizing India’s prison system to reflect the constitutional commitment to social equality, dignity, and justice.

The petitioners further argued that the provisions of state prison manuals that allocated menial tasks based on caste violated multiple constitutional rights. They pointed out specific provisions that assigned tasks like cleaning and scavenging to prisoners from lower castes, while reserving more respectable duties, such as cooking, for prisoners from higher castes. Furthermore, the petitioners raised concerns about the classification of "habitual offenders”, a category disproportionately affecting marginalized communities, particularly Denotified Tribes. This classification, the petitioners had argued, was used to unjustly target these communities and subjected them to further indignities within the prison system. "Habitual offenders" stems from the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1871 law”), a colonial law enacted by the British to control and criminalize certain tribal communities in India, branding them as "born criminals". The 1871 law was designed to incarcerate these tribes and subject them to degrading tasks, reinforcing social and caste hierarchies within the prison system. It institutionalized the marginalization of these communities, denying them basic human dignity. After independence, recognizing the inherent injustice of such practices, the government repealed the Criminal Tribes Act in 1952, moving toward constitutional values of equality and dignity for all. Despite its repeal, the vestiges of this colonial-era classification persist in the form of the "habitual offender" label in prison manuals. This classification is now largely redundant in modern India, where all prisoners should be treated with equal dignity, in line with the spirit of Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. Punishments for heinous crimes are already addressed through judicial discretion, making the "habitual offender" classification unnecessary. Continuing to apply this label infringes upon the dignity of prisoners and perpetuates colonial-era biases, detracting from the principles of reform and rehabilitation that are fundamental to India’s constitutional framework. The Supreme Court’s focus on this issue, in the context of caste-based discrimination, seems misplaced in today’s legal and social context. However, it is pertinent to mention that this is the only area where the Court’s dicta can be arraigned.

Significantly, the Court also criticized the Model Prison Manual of 2016, contending that while it made progress in eliminating caste-based distinctions in kitchen duties, it fell short of comprehensively addressing discriminatory labour assignments across all facets of prison life.

The respondents, on the other hand representing various state governments, maintained that prison management fell under the jurisdiction of the states, as per the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. They argued that the Model Prison Manual of 2016 already provided guidelines that prohibited caste-based discrimination and that states were gradually implementing these guidelines. Some states, like West Bengal, claimed that discriminatory provisions had already been removed or were in the process of being amended. The respondents also pointed to efforts by the Ministry of Home Affairs to encourage states to revise their prison manuals to align with constitutional values. However, they contended that any remaining discriminatory practices were isolated incidents and did not reflect systemic bias.

In the judgment, the Supreme Court made critical observations regarding the practice of caste-based discrimination in prisons, emphasizing that such practices are a blatant violation of constitutional principles. The Bench referred to the Constitution of India as ‘the Constitution of emancipation, equality, and dignity’ specifically noting that it “…is an emancipatory document. It provides equal citizenship to all citizens of India. The Constitution is not just a legal document, but in India’s social structure, it is a quantum leap. In one stroke, it gave a dignified identity to all citizens of India. On 26 January 1950, the Constitution eliminated the legality of caste-based discrimination, thereby raising the human dignity of our marginalised communities”. The Court traced the origins of these discriminatory practices to colonial-era prison laws that entrenched social hierarchies, and it expressed dismay at the fact that such practices had persisted decades after independence.

The judgment also underscored that prisoners retain fundamental rights, even while incarcerated, and that they cannot be subjected to degrading treatment based on their caste. It criticized state governments for failing to amend their prison manuals in line with the constitutional values of equality and social justice and pointed out that caste-based segregation and labour assignments not only violate the dignity of prisoners but also hinder their rehabilitation. The Court observed that prisons should be institutions for reform and rehabilitation, not places where societal inequalities are further perpetuated. The Bench held State accountable for the violation of fundamental rights under Article 23 as it opined that it can also be applied to situations inside prisons, if the prisoners are subjected to degrading labour or other similar oppressive practices.

In interpreting the law, the Court relied on several key constitutional provisions and precedents. It invoked Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law, and Article 15, which prohibits discrimination based on caste, among other grounds. Article 17, which abolishes untouchability, was central to the Court’s reasoning, as the discriminatory practices in prisons were viewed as a continuation of untouchability in a different form. Article 21 of the Constitution of India was the bedrock, guaranteeing the right to life with dignity.

The Bench further referred to landmark judgments such as Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) and Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India (2014). In Bandhua Mukti Morcha, the Court had addressed the issue of bonded labour and forced labour, emphasizing that such practices violate fundamental rights. Similarly, in Safai Karamchari Andolan, the Court had ruled on the illegality of manual scavenging, linking it to the broader caste-based exploitation of marginalized communities. Both these cases provided a constitutional foundation for the Court’s decision in Sukanya Shantha, highlighting that any form of caste-based labour discrimination is unconstitutional.

In addition, the Court cited Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008), another watershed judgment that dealt with laws reinforcing gender stereotypes. The Court used this precedent to put forth that laws or practices that perpetuate stereotypes and reinforce social hierarchies—whether based on gender or caste—are unconstitutional and must be struck down.

Furthermore, the bench cited Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India (2023 INSC 95) where the Court had directed to eradicate Manual Scavenging completely in a phased manner. The case walked a little ahead of rights and talked about entitlements, which are not only basic but also humane. The Court in Balram Singh had held that “the provisions for protective gear and cleaning devices are not mere statutory rights or rules, but are entitlements” guaranteed under the Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s directives following the judgment were comprehensive and aimed at eradicating caste-based discrimination within prisons. In a decisive move, the Court declared the discriminatory provisions in state prison manuals unconstitutional and ordered all states and Union Territories to revise their prison regulations within three months. The Bench further mandated that all references to caste in prison records be deleted to prevent further caste-based segregation or discrimination.

Additionally, the Court directed the Union government to amend the Model Prison Manual, 2016, to address caste-based discrimination comprehensively. While the manual had taken steps to eliminate caste-based distinctions in kitchen duties, the Court noted that this was insufficient. The Court's order called for sweeping changes to eradicate caste-based divisions across all aspects of prison life, ensuring that prisoners are not assigned tasks or duties based on their caste.

In a significant development, the Court also instructed state governments to implement mechanisms to monitor compliance with the new regulations. It directed state-level prison inspections to ensure that the revised prison manuals are being enforced and that caste-based discrimination is being systematically eliminated. The Court further mandated that police adhere to strict guidelines to prevent the arbitrary arrest and harassment of members of Denotified Tribes, addressing another concern raised by the petitioners.

This ruling not only reaffirms the Supreme Court’s role as a protector of constitutional rights but also highlights the necessity of reforming India’s prison system to align with its constitutional mandate. It serves as a powerful reminder that justice and equality must extend to all, including those within prison walls, and that the systemic inequalities that persist in Indian society must be eradicated, even in its most neglected institutions. The Court’s directives for updating prison manuals, enforcing accountability, and preventing arbitrary arrests send a clear message that caste-based discrimination has no place in modern India, whether inside or outside its prisons.

Nachiketa Joshi is a Senior Advocate in the Supreme Court and the Additional Advocate General, Govt of MP. Advocate Siddharth Shankar Dubey practices in the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow and is a State Law Officer, Govt of UP.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors. Verdictum does not assume any responsibility or liability for the contents of the article.