The Supreme Court today (October 3) declared that provisions relating to caste-based discriminatory practices in prison manuals are unconstitutional, and directed all states and Union Territories to revise their Prison Manuals, in a landmark judgment.
The order comes on a petition filed by a journalist with The Wire, Sukanya Shantha, whose 2020 report ‘From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System‘ formed the basis of the plea.
Reading out the judgement, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, heading a bench also of Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, congratulated the journalist and said that had it not been for Sukanya Shantha’s report, the injustice may have never come to light.
“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,” the CJI said. He also called the petition “beautifully researched.”
The full 148-page judgment contains many noteworthy observations.
On cruel limitations and caste-based segregation
“In the context of prisons, valid classification must be a functional classification. The classification of prisoners has been considered both from the point of view of security and discipline as well as reform and rehabilitation. This has been the objective. However, there is no nexus between classifying prisoners based on caste and securing the objectives of security or reform. Limitations on inmates that
are cruel, or irrelevant to rehabilitation are per se unreasonable, arbitrary and constitutionally suspect.
“Inmates are entitled to fair treatment that promotes rehabilitation, and classification of any kind must be geared towards the same. Courts have been enjoined with the duty “to invigorate the intra-mural man-management so that the citizen inside has spacious opportunity to unfold his potential without overmuch inhibition or sadistic overseeing”. 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.”
On dignity and colonial vestiges
“The right to live with dignity extends even to the incarcerated. Not providing dignity to prisoners is a relic of the colonizers and pre-colonial mechanisms, where oppressive systems were designed to dehumanize and degrade those under the control of the state.
“Authoritarian regimes of the pre-constitutional era saw prisons not only as places of confinement but as tools of domination. This Court, focusing on the changed legal framework brought out by the Constitution, has recognised that even prisoners are entitled to the right to dignity.”
On the state’s responsibility
“[T]he broad scope of Article 23 can be invoked to challenge practices where no wages are paid, non-payment of minimum wages takes place, social security measures for workers are not adopted, rehabilitation for bonded labour does not happen, and in similar unfair practices. The State shall be held accountable even in cases where the violation of fundamental rights such as Article 23 is done by private entities or individuals. Article 23 can also be applied to situations inside prisons, if the prisoners are subjected to degrading labour or other similar oppressive practices.”
On coercion
“Being forced to undertake the menial tasks simply because of their caste background robs prisoners of the element of choice that other prisoners enjoy. Forcing marginalized caste inmates to perform tasks like cleaning latrines or sweeping, without providing them any choice in the matter and based purely on their caste, constitutes a form of coercion. These prison rules assign them degrading labour that other inmates are not required to perform. Prisoners from lower castes are systematically exploited and their vulnerability as marginalized individuals is used as justification for assigning them low-grade tasks.”
On exploitation
“This type of labour assignment, based on their caste, cannot be classified as voluntary. Forcing the members of oppressed castes to selectively perform menial jobs amounts to forced labour under Article 23. Dr Ambedkar had articulated that the socioeconomic situation of oppressed communities should not be used to exploit their labour. Article 23 strikes at this philosophy. The said article is not a caste-ignorant provision, but a caste-conscious provision.”
On habitual offenders
“The Model Prison Manual 2016 suffers from several lacunae. The first issue to be noted with reference to the Manual is its classification of “habitual offenders”. The Manual defines “habitual offender” as “a prisoner classified as such in accordance with the provisions of applicable law or rules”. “Casual prisoner” is defined as “a prisoner other than a habitual offender”. The Manual provides for “the setting up of separate institutional facilities for different categories of prisoners”, including “maximum security prisons/annexes/yards for high-risk prisoners and hardened or habitual offenders”.
“The Manual mandates the classification of undertrial prisoners in three categories, wherein habitual offenders are tagged along with “Gangsters, hired Assassins, dacoits, serial killers/rapists/violent robbers, drug offenders, communal fanatics and those highly prone to escapes/ previous escapees/attack on police and other dangerous offenders/including those prone to self-harm/posing threat to public order”. The habitual offenders are tagged in the same category in relation to classification of high risk offenders and for determination of the level of security for effective surveillance.
“Similarly, regarding the women prisoners, it has been provided that “Habitual offenders shall be separated from casual prisoners” and that “Habitual offenders, prostitutes and brothel keepers must also be confined separately”.
On the lack of explicit prohibitions against caste-based segregation
“[T]he Manual does not explicitly prohibit physical caste-based segregation of prisoners, except in prisons for women. Only the chapter on “Women Prisoners” provides that “[n]o classification of prisoners shall be allowed on grounds of socioeconomic status, caste or class”. This is concerning, as the Manual was prepared in 2016, when prison manuals in different States mandated caste-based division of prisoners, as indicated in our analysis in the previous section. The Manual of 2016 therefore should have adopted a specific provision prohibiting the classification of prisoners on the basis of caste for all prisoners, as it does in the case of women prisoners.”
On forced labour
“The above provisions prima facie may be essential to maintain prison discipline, but absent any provision prohibiting caste-based allotment of work, these provisions may be used to target prisoners from marginalized castes. It may create a scenario where a prisoner from a marginalized caste may not be able to deny the work allotted to them on the basis of their caste, which would also be violative of the Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India, which protects individual dignity and prohibits forced labour.”
On the caste column
“The “caste” column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts’ prisoners’ registers inside the prisons shall be deleted.”
On the need to reflect
“We need an institutional approach where people from marginalized communities could share their pain and anguish about their future collectively. We need to reflect and do away with institutional practices, which discriminate against citizens from marginalized communities or treat them without empathy. We need to identify systemic discrimination in all spaces by observing patterns of exclusion. After all, the “bounds of caste are made of steel”– “Sometimes invisible but almost always inextricable”. But not so strong that they cannot be broken with the power of the Constitution.”
