Introduction:
Caste began as a social and religious hierarchy that divided people into strict groups according to their occupation, thousands of years ago, which later became a deeply embedded part of Indian culture over the centuries, impacting every facet of life, including marriage, occupation, and social standing. In modern India, caste-based discrimination still affects millions of people's lives despite legal attempts to end it. Originally based on occupation, these divisions were less strict than they eventually became. But as time went on, the social stratification grew more pronounced and these varnas became inherited by birth.
Caste divisions were largely reinforced by the concepts of purity and pollution. The Shudras and people who were the lowest in varna system, later known as Dalits or "untouchables," were viewed as impure and cast in the lowest echelons of society,1 while the Brahmins, who were thought to be the most "pure," were positioned at the top of the hierarchy. These divisions were further codified by religious texts such as the Manusmriti, which was composed in 200 CE.2 It reinforced the notion of birth-based social status and offered a religious rationale for the caste system.3 After India gained independence in 1947, the Constitution of India came to be drafted under the leadership of B.R. Ambedkar, who was a champion against caste-based discrimination, identifying his own struggles as a person of 'backward caste'.4
The Constitutional provisions constituted thereof, banned untouchability and established affirmative action measures known as reservations to benefit the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes (Dalits). Dr Ambedkar, as Chairman of the Drafting Committee, remarked in his last address to the Constituent Assembly5:
"On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life?....."
These words however, still echo in contemporary times as the caste based discrimination has found its way to permeate the current socio-legal status of lives in India.
The judgement that this Article focuses on, has brought to light the caste based discrimination which was practiced even today in Prisons across the nation. In Sukanya Shatha v. Union of India6 (hereinafter referred as 'Judgement'), the three judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has answered the question that 'Whether provisions in the Prison Manuals of various States which distinguish between inmates based on caste are unconstitutional', in the present article the author shall discuss this judgement at length.
Facts of the Case:
The Petitioner Sukanya Shantha is a journalist, on December 10, 2020 she had authored and published an article as a part of the series 'Barred–The Prisons Project', produced in partnership with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting titled "From Segregation to Labour, Manu's Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System"7. In the Article, the Petitioner presented an account of discriminatory practices being rampantly followed in Indian prisons by allocation of tasks on the basis of one's caste, irrespective of the offence committed by the accused or under trial prisoners. Subsequently, the Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the discriminatory provisions in various State Prison Manuals before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Prison administration and the Rules thereof are State specific, since 'Prisons' is a State subject under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.8
The Petition brought to light that the normative penal system, which is based on the principles of "equality before the law" and "protection of the law," has not been implemented by the prison system. Instead, it adheres to Manu's law laid down in an ancient text named Manusmriti, which is based on the idea of injustice and holds that some lives are more valuable than others and should be punished more severely than others. The States continue to apply the caste-based definition of "justice," determining labor and punishment based on a person's position on the caste grid. These State respective Prison manuals also considered certain tribes (wandering tribes) as 'professional criminals' by the virtue of their birth, following the colonial laws, who had been 'notified' by the colonial government as 'criminal tribes' under the Criminal Tribes Act 18719, irrespective of the nature of the crime.
The impugned rules are challenged on the ground that first, they directly identify caste as a means to allocate intramural labour, food-duties; second, by using vague terms such as "suitable caste" or "superior method of living" and similar terms, they tend to advantage the so-called higher castes; and third, they target the members of de-notified tribes.10 Inmates are subjected to varying burdens according to their caste identity.
Impugned Prison rules of various States:
Certain discriminatory Prison rules of various States include:
a. The Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual11:
Rule 289: 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; 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.
b. The West Bengal Jail Code Rules for Superintendence and Management of Jail in West Bengal, 196712
Rule 793: ...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: 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.
c. Madhya Pradesh Jail Manual 1987:13
Rule 411: The following persons shall be liable to be classified habitual criminals-....(iv) Any member of de-notified tribe subject to the discretion of the State Government concerned.
d. Andhra Pradesh Prison Rules, 1979:
Rule 440: Allowance for caste prejudice – 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 448: Restrictions on extramural employment of convicts– ...(f) If he is a member of a wandering or criminal tribe....
Rule 1036: Classes of convicted prisoners and their treatment – (1): Convicted prisoners are divided into three divisions namely classes A, B and C.
(2) Prisoners shall be treated as "A" Class if-
(i) They are non-habitual prisoners of good character;
(ii) They by social status, education and habit of life have been accustomed to a superior mode of living;...
e. Odisha Model Jail Manual Rules for the Superintendence and Management of Jails in Odisha, 202014
Rule 784: (25) 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.
f. The Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 198315
225. Classes of prisoners: (1) As mentioned in rule 217, convicted prisoners are divided into two divisions or classes, A and B. (i) prisoners shall be eligible for class A, if they by social status, education or habit of life have been accustomed to a superior mode of living, Habitual prisoners may at the discretion of the classifying authority , be included under this class on grounds of character and antecedents.
Weighing the impugned rules against the Constitutional provisions:
a. Article 14: Right to Equality
To satisfy that a rule or law confers positive discrimination,
which is allowed by constitutional provisions, in advancement of
social justice and equality, it must satisfy the test of rational
nexus and intelligible differentia. It is unconstitutional to
differentiate between prisoners based on factors such as
"habit," "custom," "superior mode of
living," "natural tendency to escape," etc. These
words and expressions are not intelligible differentia that can be
used to distinguish between different prisoner classes.16 As a result, people from
marginalized castes and de-notified tribes have been targeted with
these terms.
Maximizing the reformatory potential of prisons must be the goal
of classifying labor for treatment and for granting rights like
remissions. Such a classification ought to be determined
exclusively by each prisoner's unique correctional
requirements. Such a classification does not aid reformation. Thus,
these provisions were held to be 'violative of Article 14 on
account of invalid classification and subversion of substantive
equality'17.
b. Article 15: Right against Discrimination
Stereotypes against the marginalized castes are the foundation of the manuals and regulations. In addition to stigmatizing and demeaning marginalized groups, these stereotypes uphold and justify a social hierarchy that contradicts the equality guaranteed by the constitution. The Manuals openly discriminate by giving the lower castes jobs like sweeping and cleaning while letting the upper castes handle the cooking. The notion that an occupation is considered as "degrading or menial" is an aspect of the caste system and untouchability. In the same vein, 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
Further, Members of de-notified tribes are excluded from meaningful social participation due to the tendency to treat them as criminals or as having poor morals, which perpetuates a stereotype. Such preconceptions give legitimacy to discrimination against these communities when they are incorporated into the legal system. All of these factors constitute direct discrimination under Art. 15(1) of the Constitution.
c. Article 21: Right to Life
The development of an individual's personality is envisioned in Art. 21, which also ensures a Right to live with dignity. Discrimination and caste prejudice impede a person's dignity and ability to develop as a person. Thus, as part of the right to life for members of marginalized communities, Art. 21 guarantees the ability to transcend caste barriers. One way to interpret Art. 21's protection is, as a constitutional guarantee that the members of marginalized communities should be able to escape these long-standing social constraints. It goes beyond merely ensuring their survival to guarantee that they can thrive in a setting of equality, dignity, and respect free from caste-based discrimination that stunts their personal development.
d. Article 23: Right against Forced Labour
Several provisions of different Prison Manuals impose a restriction that only certain communities are permitted to engage in one type of work. Communities that have become "accustomed" to carrying out such tasks are recommended to perform "menial" jobs. The terminology used in these manuals and rules has their roots in a caste-based social structure, in which some communities were historically forced to perform manual labor, cleaning, scavenging, and other types of servitude because they were deemed inferior or impure.
The provisions stating that "food" must be prepared by inmate chefs of "suitable caste" gives the jail official the authority to discriminate against the underprivileged castes. Only members of the "Mehtar, Hari caste or Chandal" or comparable castes are required to perform sweeping and toilet cleaning duties, which is merely a form of low-quality labor. According to Article 23, it is "forced labor" when members of marginalized communities are forced to perform labor or work that is deemed unclean or of low quality. It was also held in Sunil Batra v.Delhi Administration18 that 'degrading labour' cannot be forced upon prisoners.
Thus, these provisions are directly impeding on the Fundamental Rights conferred under Art. 14,15,17,21 and 23.
The inadequate provisions of Model Prison Manual, 2016 and Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023:
The Model Prison Manual was issued in 2016,19 after years of Independence, yet it does not explicitly prohibit physical caste-based segregation of prisoners, except in prisons for women, neither does it prohibit division of work on basis of caste, except in cooking. Only the chapter on "Women Prisoners" provides that "no classification of prisoners shall be allowed on grounds of socioeconomic status, caste or class"20.
Further, in May 2023 Ministry of Home Affairs prepared the draft legislation of 'Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023' (Model Act)21 and forwarded it to all States and Union Territories in May 2023 for adoption in their respective jurisdictions. However, the Model Act does not contain a reference to the prohibition of caste-based discrimination. Instead, it further empowers the jail superintendent "for the execution of all orders regarding the labour of prisoners" and that they "shall assign to each prisoner his work on the recommendation of the classifying Committee constituted in each Central Prison for the purpose".22 No provision has been laid down for the continued targeting of Denotified Tribes. Hence, the caste based discrimination in Prisons has been overlooked ostentatiously by the respective Governments.
The decision by the Hon'ble Court:
- The impugned provisions violate Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution, and thus ruled unconstitutional.
- It was directed that within three months, the Union government must make the necessary adjustments, as specified in this ruling, to address caste-based discrimination in the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023; and all States and Union Territories must amend their prison manuals and rules in compliance with this ruling;
- The "caste" column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts' prisoners' registers inside the prisons shall be deleted;
- The Police was directed to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar[23] and Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi24 to ensure that members of Denotified Tribes are not subjected to arbitrary arrest;
- The Court took suo motu cognizance of the discrimination inside prisons on any ground such as caste, gender, disability, and shall list the case from now onwards as In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India.
- The DLSAs and the Board of Visitors established under the Model Prison Manual 2016 shall collaborate to conduct routine inspections to determine whether caste-based discrimination or other discriminatory practices, as highlighted in this judgment, are still occurring inside prisons.
- Further, All States and the Union government are required to submit a compliance report on this ruling on the first date of hearing of the aforementioned suo motu petition, along with a joint status report submitted by NALSA.
Thus, the Supreme Court declared the certain provisions of respective State specific Prison manuals as unconstitutional, and provided for specific directions and guidelines for the implementation of new rules in adherence of the law laid out in this Judgement.
Conclusion:
It is astonishing that it took the Supreme Court decades to consider this case and rule that these biased and discriminatory clauses were unconstitutional. However, now that the Supreme Court has taken suo moto took cognizance of this case in Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India to stop any such practices, the future of eradication of such rules from manuals in ensured. However, these practices may still occur with social acceptance but without legal repercussions. In the author's opinion, although the measures put forth by the Apex Court are noteworthy, yet the judicial approach to outlawing and stopping such practices is ineffective because its ruling will either invalidate a specific law that permits them or, depending on the circumstances, forbid them in particular prisons. But to put an end to any such discriminatory practice at any extent, an executive-level revision of prison regulations in totality and the establishment of a compliance monitoring organization overseen by the judiciary will be a more successful approach.
Footnotes
1. Chapter Ten: Shudras- Untouchables- Dalits, Asian Human Rights Commission, http://www.humanrights.asia/resources/books/demoralization-and-hope/chapter-ten-shudras-untouchables-dalits/
2. The Law of Manusmriti: An Antifeminist and Anti-Human Manuscript, Edgar K., International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation, [Vol. 3, Issue 5, 2021] https://ijlsi.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Law-of-Manusmriti.pdf
3. Shunsuke Sato.The Origin, History, and Contemporary Status of the Caste System in India, Advance.October 23, 2024.
4. Early Life, Dr. Ambedkar Foundation, https://ambedkarfoundation.nic.in/know-ambedkar.html#:~:text=He%20was%20the%20fourteenth%20child,untouchable%22%20by%20the%20upper%20class.
5. Constituent Assembly Debates (25 November 1949)
6. Sukanya Shatha v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 753.
7. From Segregation to Labour, Manu's Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System, Sukanya Shantha, Pulitzer Center (Dec 10,2020) https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/segregation-labour-manus-caste-law-governs-indian-prison-system .
8. Entry-4 (Prison Reformatories, Borstal Institutions and other institutions of like nature) in the State List (List-II) of the VII schedule, Constitution of India, 1950.
9. Criminal Tribes Act, 1871 https://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/readings/Simhadri.pdf
10. Para 163 of the Judgement.
11. The Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual (https://shasanadesh.up.gov.in/frmPDF.aspx?qry=MTAzIzE1IzQjMjAyMg== )
12. The West Bengal Jail Code Rules for Superintendence and Management of Jail in West Bengal, 1967 (http://wbcorrectionalservices.gov.in/pdf/jcr.pdf)
13. Madhya Pradesh Jail Manual 1987 (https://jail.mp.gov.in/en/mp-prison-manual)
14. Odisha Model Jail Manual Rules for the Superintendence and Management of Jails in Odisha, 2020 (https://prisons.odisha.gov.in/new_jail_manual/)
15. The Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 (http://prisons.tn.gov.in/TAMIL%20NADU%20PRISON%20MANUAL_updated.pdf)
16. Para 187 of the Judgement.
17. Para 170 of the Judgement
18. 1979 INSC 271.
19. Model Prison Manual 2016, p. 4, https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/PrisonManual2016.pdf
20. Para 26.04 Note (ii) Model Prison Manual, 2016.
21. Ibid at 19.
22. Section 60, Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023
23. [2014] 8 SCR 128.
24. [2024] 5 SCR 927.
Disclaimer: This article was first published in the S&A Law Offices - 'Indian Legal Impetus' newsletter in December 2024.