No Social Group Born As 'Scavenger Class'; Notion That Some Occupations Are 'Degrading' Is An Aspect Of Untouchability: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today highlighted provisions of prison manual/rules which reestablished untouchability prohibited under Article 17 of the Indian Constitution.

A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrahud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra has held against such provisions which perpetrate caste-based delegation of work based on the perceptions of the caste system that certain castes are meant to do jobs considered as impure or unclean. Whereas, certain castes are considered suitable for jobs like cooking food. 

It said: "Refusal to check caste practices or prejudices amounts to cementing of such practices. If such practices are based on the oppression of the marginalized castes, then such practices cannot be left untouched. The Constitution mandates an end to caste discrimination and untouchability. The provision that food shall be cooked by “suitable caste” reflects notions of untouchability, where certain castes are considered suitable for cooking or handling kitchen work, while others are not. Besides, the division of work on the basis of caste is a practice of untouchability prohibited under the Constitution."

This observation was made in a landmark judgment which held caste-based segregation in prisons is illegal and unconstitutional.

Some of the provisions highlighted by the Court are as follows: 

Rule 289(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Manual provides: “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; but may be required to carry water for his own use provided he belongs to the class of society the members of which are accustomed to perform such duties in their own homes.” 

Rule 158 states: “Remission to convicts on scavenging duty - Subject to good work and conduct in jail, convicts of the scavenger class working as scavengers in jails…”

Rule 694 of West Bengal Manual provides: “… Interference with genuine religious practices or caste prejudices of prisoners should be avoided”.

Rule 741 states: “Food shall be cooked and carried to the cells by prisoner-cooks of suitable caste, under the superintendence of a jail officer…”

Rule 793 provides: “The barber should belong to the A class. Sweepers should be chosen from the Mether or Hari caste, also from the Chandal or other castes, if by the custom of the district they perform similar work when free, or from any caste if the prisoner volunteers to do the work.”

Rule 1117 states: “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."

Rule 36 of the Madhya Pradesh manual states: “While the latrine parade is being carried out, the mehtars attached to each latrine shall be present, and shall call the attention of the convict overseer to any prisoner who does not cover up his dejecta with dry earth. The mehtars shall empty the contents of the small receptacle into large iron drums and replace the receptacles in the latrine after having cleaned them.”

Rule 26.69 of the Himachal Pradesh Manual states, “If there are no female of suitable caste for conservancy work, paid-sweepers shall be taken into the enclosure in charge of a warder and under conditions laid down in paragraph 214”.

The Court has held that notion that an occupation is considered “degrading or menial” is an aspect of the caste system and untouchability. It said: 

"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."

The Court observed that a reference to 'scavenger class' is a practice of the caste system and untouchability. It said: "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."

It added: "Prison manuals allot tasks of a barber to individuals from a certain caste, while sweeping work is allowed to Mehtar/Hari/Chandal or similar castes. It is also provided that work shall be allotted on the basis of “attitude and sofar as may be practicable with due regard to his previous habits.” This is a caste-based delegation of work based on the perceptions of the caste system that certain castes are meant to do jobs of “sweeping”. The rule that a prisoner of a high caste be allowed to refuse the food cooked by other castes is a legal sanction by the State authorities to untouchability and the caste system."

The Court also questioned another set of provisions which deals with the 'habits' of certain communities. 

For instance, Rule 440 of the Andhra Pradesh Manual states: “The prison tasks including conservancy work shall be allotted at the discretion of the Superintendent with due regard to capacity of the prisoner, his education, intelligence and attitude and so far as may be practicable with due regard to his previous habits."

 Rule 784 of the Odisha Manual states, “Prisoners who have shown, or are likely to have, a strong inclination to escape or are members of a wandering or criminal tribe, even though eligible, shall not be employed on extramural work.”

Rule 201 of Kerala Manual defines “habitual criminals” as follows: “(1) any person convicted of an offence punishable under Chapters XII, XVII and XVIII of the Indian Penal Code, whose facts of the present case, show that he is by habit a robber, house breaker, dacoit, thief or receiver of stolen property or that he habitually commits extortion, cheating, counterfeiting coin, currency notes or stamps or forgery”; “(4) any person convicted of any of the offence specified in (i) above when it appears from the facts of the case, even though no previous conviction has been proved, that he is by habit a member of a gang of dacoit, on of thieves or a dealer in slaves or in stolen property”; “(5) any person of a Criminal tribe subject to the discretion of the Government.”

It has held that the provisions that "men of wandering tribes" or "criminal tribes" have a "strong tendency to escape" or are by "habit" accustomed to theft reflects a stereotype which has its roots in the colonial casteist system.

It said:"These stereotypes not only criminalize entire communities but also reinforce caste-based prejudices. They resemble a form of untouchability, as they assign certain negative traits to specific groups based on identity, perpetuating their marginalization and exclusion.

By marking them as “criminal by birth,” the law institutionalized a prejudiced view of these tribes, treating them as inherently dishonest and prone to theft This stereotype—echoing elements of untouchability—reduced their humanity to a set of negative traits and perpetuated their exclusion from mainstream society. Once labelled a criminal tribe, individuals from these communities faced systematic discrimination in employment, education, and social services. The stigma attached to these labels extended beyond legal frameworks and became a part of social consciousness."

It also held that certain provision which defines a “non-habitual” prisoner by “by social status” and “habit of life… accustomed to a superior mode of living” is another caste-based construct.

The Court concluded: "This hierarchical view of social status plays into the caste-based division of labour and morality that has long been entrenched in Indian society. While those from higher castes or classes were perceived as refined and deserving of more lenient treatment (even within the colonial criminal justice system), those from lower castes or marginalized communities were viewed as having a natural tendency towards criminality or immorality. This was not only an injustice but also reinforced existing power structures, ensuring that marginalized groups were trapped in cycles of poverty and discrimination, unable to transcend the stigmatization they faced."