End Caste-Based Allotment Of Work To Prisoners, Delete Caste Column In Prison Registers : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court today (October 3) laid down crucial guidelines for the prevention of segregation and division of labour solely on the basis of the caste of the prisoners in Prisons.
The Court struck down the provisions of the Prison Manuals of several States as per which jobs were assigned to prisons based on their castes. The Court held that assigning cleaning and sweeping to the marginalised castes and assigning cooking to higher-caste prisoners is nothing but a direct caste discrimination and a violation of Article 15.
"On a reading of the impugned provisions, it is clear that the provisions discriminate against marginalized castes and act to the advantage of certain castes. By assigning cleaning and sweeping work to the marginalized castes, while allowing the high castes to do cooking, the Manuals directly discriminate. This is an instance of direct discrimination under Article 15(1)."
"The manuals/rules are also based on and reinforce stereotypes against the marginalized castes. These stereotypes not only demean and stigmatize marginalized communities but also serve to maintain and legitimize a social hierarchy that goes against the constitutional values of equality. The persistence of such associations in official documents like the Manuals/Rules normalizes the idea that these tasks are somehow natural for marginalized communities, reinforcing harmful societal hierarchies. By assigning specific types of work to marginalized castes based on their supposed "customary" roles, the Manuals perpetuate the stereotype that people from these communities are either incapable of or unfit for more skilled, dignified, or intellectual work."
Provisions allowing for caste-based segregation violate Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23 of the Constitution. Such division of labour is an aspect of untouchability, the Court ruled.
"Segregating prisoners on the basis of caste would reinforce caste differences or animosity that ought to be prevented at the first place. Segregation would not lead to rehabilitation " CJI DY Chandrachud said reading out the judgment.
No one is born in a class to do degrading work
The Court took objection to the provisions of the UP Prison Manual which provided that a convict sentenced to simple imprisonment, shall not be called upon to perform duties of a "degrading or menial character" unless he belongs to a "class or community accustomed to perform such duties." West Bengal manual said that sweepers should be chosen from the Mether or Hari caste, also from the Chandal or other caste. “Any prisoner in a jail who is of so high a caste that he cannot eat food cooked by the existing cooks shall be appointed a cook and be made to cook for the full complement of men," the WB manual provided.
The Court also flagged the provisions of the Rajasthan prison manual which referred to denotified tribes. Reference was made to the provisions in the Prison Manuals of West Bengal, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala etc which defined habitual offenders.
Similar provisions were there in Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.
"The notion that an occupation is considered as “degrading or menial” is an aspect of the caste system and untouchability. The caste system rigidly assigns certain tasks to specific communities based on birth, with the lowest castes, being relegated to tasks considered impure or unclean, such as manual scavenging, cleaning, and other forms of physical labour. That a person belonging to such a community is accustomed to performing menial tasks is a mandate of the caste system. Similarly, the reference to “scavenger class” is a practice of the caste system and untouchability. No social group is born as a “scavenger class”. They are forced to undertake certain jobs that are considered 'menial' and polluting based on the notions of birth-based purity and pollution."
A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra was pronouncing the judgment in a PIL filed by journalist Sukanya Shanta based on her article published in The Wire.
The Court directed all States and Union Territories to revise their prison manuals to end caste-based allotment of work. The Court also directed the Union Government to make necessary changes in its Model Prison Rules to address caste-based segregation. The Court further directed that the reference to habitual offenders in the prison manuals should be in accordance with the legislative definitions.
Importantly, the Court also directed that the caste columns in prison registers must be deleted.
"The “caste” column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts/prisoners' registers inside the prisons shall be deleted."
The Court also registered a suo motu case titled "In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India" taking suo motu cognizance of the discrimination in the prisons and directed the listing of the matter after three weeks to seek compliance reports from the Union/States.
Court lauds the efforts of the petitioner & lawyers
Before pronouncing the judgment, CJI Chandrachud said that it was a "beautifully researched petition" and congratulated the lawyers for arguing the matter effectively.
"Ma'am Sukanya Shanta, thank you for writing that well written piece, it highlights the power of citizens, they write well researched articles and lead the matters to this Court," CJI said.
Briefly put, the petition was filed by journalist-Sukanya Shantha highlighting discriminatory practices taking place in the prisons of certain states/UTs of India. She had authored the award-winning report 'From Segregation to Labour, Manu's Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System' published by The Wire on December 10, 2020.
The Petition highlights identical discriminatory laws within the State Prison Manual of 13 major states including Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, Punjab, Bihar, Maharashtra, etc.
Arguments By The Petitioner
Senior Advocate S Muralidhar and Advocate Disha Wadekar appeared for Shantha and argued that the discrimination was taking place in three ways: (i) through division of manual labor; (ii) through segregation of barracks on caste lines; (iii) through extant provisions in state prison manuals which discriminate against prisoners belonging to de-notified tribes (referred to as criminal or wandering and nomadic tribes in the manuals) and “habitual offenders”.
Besides the above, it was contended that the Model Prison Manual was inadequate insofar as there was a need to address caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons. The counsels further pointed out that they had placed on record testimonials from undertrials (past and present), detailing their experiences of the discriminatory practices.
Sr Adv Muralidhar, in particular, drew the court's attention to an advisory issued by the Union to states/UTs in February, 2024 to address the issue of caste-based discrimination. He pointed out that in the replies filed by some of the states, there was an admission of the discriminatory practices and the same were sought to be justified.
Arguments By The Respondents
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati (for Union), on the other hand, urged that prisons being a state subject, the Union can do nothing more than issuing an Advisory unless the court directs that it monitor compliance and report back.
A counsel for State of Uttar Pradesh also submitted before the court that the state had filed its reply containing provisions from its prison manual as well as stating that there was no caste-based discrimination taking place in the prisons. The submission was however countered by Sr Adv Muralidhar, pointing to one of the provisions: "your Lordships may see [Rule] 289...it's really disturbing...'a convict sentenced to simple imprisonment shall not be called upon to perform duties of degrading character unless he belongs to a class or community accustomed to perform such duties'...what kind of reply is this? It does not even mention Rule 289".
Other reports on the judgment can be read here.
Case Title: Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1404/2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 771