Mumbai: On October 3, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that ended caste-based division of labour and segregation of prisoners in Indian jails. The apex court also struck down prison rules in several states that ascribed criminal tendencies to Denotified Tribes (DNTs) that are historically marginalised communities and stigmatised as “criminal tribes” during the British rule.
The three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, declared these practices unconstitutional, effectively dismantling provisions in many state prison manuals that permitted such discrimination.
The 148-page judgment, which builds on an investigative report by The Wire from December 2020, not only invalidates these unconstitutional provisions but also directs states to remove caste-related data from prison records.
In a key section of the ruling, the court issued nine directives, one of which states: “The ‘caste’ column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicted prisoners’ registers inside the prisons shall be deleted.”
However, the rationale behind this specific directive is not explained in the judgment. It is important to note that deletion of the caste column was not part of the prayers in the petition filed by me either.
Also read: Why The Wire’s Sukanya Shantha Filed a Petition Against Caste-Based Practices in India’s Prisons
Registers the only source of data on prison caste composition
This decision may have significant implications for studying prison demographics, as these registers are perhaps the only source of data available on the caste composition of incarcerated individuals. When a person enters a prison, their details are recorded at the entry level. As an undertrial or convicted prisoner, they are asked for several details, including age, gender, caste, and education. This information, filled into small columns in a prison register, is sent to the State Crime Record Bureau (SCRB) and then to the National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB). Though not comprehensive or scientifically collected, these details represent the only form of data available to understand how the carceral system affects different communities disproportionately.
According to the Prison Statistics of India (PSI), part of the NCRB data, in 2022 (the latest available data), 5,73,220 prisoners were lodged in 1,330 prisons across India, against an actual capacity of 4,36,266 prisoners. Over 70% of them belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Muslim communities. This crucial information is publicly available because prisons are mandated to fill out the caste and religion columns mentioned in the NCRB data.
A standard form on which prisoners’ details are collated. Photo: By arrangement.
Following the Supreme Court ruling, many states are uncertain about how to proceed with collecting data. Sampath Mandarapu, DIG Prisons of the Warangal Range, said that in Telangana, prison authorities collect not only caste data but also sub-caste information.
He explained that collecting this data does not mean “we are discriminating against them, but rather ensuring we have a social understanding of which communities are disproportionately targeted by the criminal justice system.”
He emphasised that policy decisions are drafted based on this information, and if anything, states should be focusing on gathering more data to formulate policies and bring meaningful changes to the prison system. Many senior researchers and experts on carceral system agree with Mandarapu.
A standard form on which prisoners’ details are collected. Identifying details have been hidden. Photo: By arrangement.
What about NCRB?
While Telangana plans to continue collecting this information unless directed otherwise by the state government, in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, prison officials are already moving toward dropping this crucial data. A senior prison official in Tamil Nadu confirmed that they had received instructions to eliminate the caste column. When asked how they would provide the necessary data for the NCRB report, the official said they were awaiting directions from the state home department. Similarly, Kerala has been directed to remove the column. In Maharashtra, strangely, the caste column in the prison register was done away with many years ago. Karnataka never maintained caste data in their prison registers. Yet, mysteriously, the data gets entered in the NCRB report. How this data is collected and finally fed into the system is unknown.
Also read: From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System
In 2018, the National Dalit Movement for Justice (NDMJ)-NCDHR, a Delhi-based anti-caste organisation, released a detailed report on the conditions of prisoners from Dalit and Adivasi communities. Researcher Rahul Singh meticulously identified various forms of discrimination faced by prisoners from marginalised identities, relying heavily on NCRB data. Another study on the socio-economic conditions of Muslim prisoners in Maharashtra was conducted in 2011 by Dr. Vijay Raghavan and Roshni Nair of the Centre for Criminology and Justice at TISS, which also heavily relied on NCRB data. “For such reports, you need to have raw data in hand,” Raghavan says.
The 2016 NCRB report, published in 2019, omitted critical data on caste and religion. Researchers involved with the NCRB shared that while the data had been collected and analysed, they were suddenly asked to drop it. According to researchers, this decision was made primarily to hide data on Muslim prisoners. “Since the NCRB couldn’t simply erase one data point, they decided to drop the caste column as well,” a researcher involved in the 2016 report shared. The sudden decision led to an uproar in the media and among prison reform advocates. The following year, the data was reinstated in the report.
In light of the Supreme Court’s order, many prison officials and subject experts fear that the government may use the ruling to withhold caste data, and this time, it can cite the court’s directive as justification.
Note: Sukanya Shantha was the petitioner in the case which led to the SC’s judgement.
