Colonial Rulers Imported Caste-Based Allocation Of Work To Prisons Due To Pressure From Oppressor Castes : Supreme Court

In a significant judgment declaring caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons as illegal and unconstitutional, the Supreme Court revisited the history of how the colonial administrator adopted discriminatory social practices prevailing in British India to not upset the oppressor castes. 

The Court has also initiated suo moto proceedings to ensure that prisons across India comply with this judgment.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrahud and comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra recollected that caste was used as a factor of classification in prisons in British India. 

It stated that this began with the Prison Discipline 1836-38, which stated that a man of 'higher caste' cannot be forced to work at any trade as it would 'disgrace him' and his family, and would be viewed as cruelty.

The Court said: "Convicts from communities lower in the caste hierarchy were expected to continue with their customary occupations in jail. The caste hierarchy outside the prison was replicated within the prison."

The Committee's recommendations for including a common mess instead of food allowances for prisoners to cook their meals, which was greater accommodation of caste, were shelved. However, in the 1840s, prisoners were granted food allowances and they could prepare their own meals, duly observing their caste practices, the Court stated. T

The Court said: "To replace this, a stricter mess system was introduced in some prisons. However, prisoners were divided along caste lines and each group was assigned a different prisoner cook."

How British entertained caste-based system in prisons 

The Court noted that the colonial administrators linked caste with prison administration of labour, food and treatment of prisoners. It said: "They emboldened the occupational hierarchy with legal policy and imported the vice of caste-based allocation of labour into the prison, due to pressure from the oppressor castes."

Noting an example, the Court stated: "An 1862 Report of the Inspector of Prisons in Oudh showed that in Lucknow Central Jail, these prejudices were entertained to the extent that Brahmin inmates would be allowed to bathe before they ate and to mark out a designated area where they would receive their food and where no one would be allowed to enter."

Another instance referred made by Court: "Similarly, the Madras Jail Manual, 1899 stated that “In allotting labour to convicts reasonable allowance shall be made for caste prejudice, e.g., no Brahmin or caste Hindu shall be employed in chucklers' [cobblers'] work. Care shall, however, be taken that caste prejudice is not made an excuse for avoiding heavy forms of labour”."

The Court referred to David Arnold, who in 'Labouring for the Raj: Convict Work Regimes in Colonial India' writes: "The British were particularly wary on this score because of the intense resistance to common messing in north Indian jails in the 1840s and 1850s, which, by denying highcaste prisoners the right to cook their own food, provoked fierce prison demonstrations and contributed to the rash of jailbreaks during the opening phase of the 1857–58 uprising." 

Caste and habitual offenders 

The 1919-1920 Indian Jail Committee Report suggested classification in prisons should ensure that the young and inexperienced offenders were not contaminated by the influence of the more experienced, habitual offenders. The Court states that the classification and resultant segregation were deemed essential primarily as a means of achieving sound prison administration.

However, the classification was based on 'caste'. The Court noted: "The nature of the Manuals could be seen from Rule 825 of the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, 1941 which provided: “The Superintendent shall not inflict the punishment of whipping on a superior class convict except with previous permission of the State Government.”

Rule 719 provided, “Reasonable respect shall be paid to religious scruples and caste prejudices of the prisoners in all matters as far as it is compatible with discipline.""

Caste-based discrimination prevails even after Independence

The Court remarked that caste-based discrimination continued to prevail even after independence. It referred to Rules 37 and 67 of the Rajasthan Prison Rules, 1951 for reference. 

Rule 37 stated: "Separate receptacles shall be provided in all latrines for solid and liquid excreta, and the use of them shall be fully explained to all prisoners by the members. The Mehtars shall put a layer of dry earth at least 1 inch thick Into each receptacle for solid excreta before it is used, and every prisoner after he uses a receptacle shall cover his dejecta with a scoopful of dry earth. Vessels for urine shall be one-third filled with water."

Rule 67 provided: "The cooks shall be of the non-habitual class. Any Brahmin or sufficiently high caste Hindu prisoner from this class is eligible for appointment as cook. All prisoners who object on account of high caste to eat food prepared by the existing cooks shall be appointed a cook and be made to cook for the full complement of men. Individually criminal prisoners shall, under no circumstances, be allowed to cook for themselves."

Finally, in 1987, the RK Kapoor Committee highlighted the inadequacy of classification and segregation in prisons. The report noted that the classification into smaller groups was not along systematic lines. It recommended: "The recommendations of the classification committee should broadly fall under two heads: (a) classification in respect of security and control, and (b) classification from the point of view of correction, reformation and rehabilitation. After studying a prisoner, in detail, and making its assessment the classification committee should make recommendations on the following points in regard to his needs.”

Other reports on the judgment can be read here.