SC bans caste-based discrimination in prisons, quashes jail manual rules of 10 states

NEW DELHI — In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday banned caste-based discrimination like division of manual labour, segregation of barracks and bias against prisoners of de-notified tribes and habitual offenders by holding as “unconstitutional” the jail manual rules of 10 states for fostering such biases.

Observing that “right to live with dignity extends even to the incarcerated”, a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said, “Criminal laws of the colonial era continue to impact the postcolonial world.”

It asked the Centre and the states to amend their prison manuals and laws within three months, and file compliance reports before it.

VIDEO | The Supreme Court has set aside discriminatory provisions of prison manuals of some states while deprecating the practice of caste-based discrimination, distribution of work and segregation of prisoners in separate wards as per their castes. Here's what advocate Disha… pic.twitter.com/cceuUWLKuo

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) October 3, 2024

It dealt with certain discriminatory provisions of jail manuals of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Kerala, Maharashtra Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh and set them aside.

Referring to right against touchability, it said Article 17 enunciates that everyone is born equal.

“There cannot be any stigma attached to the existence, touch or presence of any person. By way of Article 17, our Constitution strengthens the equality of status of every citizen…,” it said.

Also read: Supreme Court suggests identifying ‘creamy layer’ in SC-STs

Referring to an instance, it said convicts from communities lower in the caste hierarchy were expected to continue with their customary occupations in jail and the caste hierarchy outside the prison was replicated within the prison.

“Rules that discriminate among individual prisoners on the basis of their caste specifically or indirectly by referring to proxies of caste identity are violative of Article 14 on account of invalid classification and subversion of substantive equality,” it held.

For instance, rules assigning sweeping work which stipulate that “sweepers shall be chosen from the “Mehtar or Hari caste”, also is part of discrimination, it said.

Penning the 148-page judgment on a PIL of journalist Sukanya Shantha who had written an article on prevalent caste-based discriminations on prisons, the CJI also ordered deletion of the ‘caste’ column and any references to caste of jailed undertrials or convicted prisoners’ registers inside the prisons.

“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 recognized that even prisoners are entitled to the right to dignity,” the verdict said

Referring to fundamental rights on equality, life with dignity, abolition of untouchability and the right against slavery, it said in a post-constitutional society, the law must take affirmative steps to achieve equal protection of law to all its citizens.

Observing that human dignity is a constitutional value and a constitutional goal, it referred to judgments and said, “Human dignity is intrinsic to and inseparable from human existence” and this also included “the right to protection against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”.

The CJI said there also exists a close relationship between dignity and the quality of life. Dignity of human existence is fully realised only when one leads a quality life, he added.

“The impugned provisions are declared unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14 (equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 17 (abolition of untouchability), 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and 23 (right against forced labour) of the Constitution. All States and Union Territories are directed to revise their Prison Manuals/Rules in accordance with this judgment within a period of three months,” it directed.

It also ordered the Centre to make necessary changes according to the judgment to address caste-based discrimination in the Model Prison Manual, 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023 within three months.

“References to ‘habitual offenders’ in the prison manuals/Model Prison Manual shall be in accordance with the definition provided in the habitual offender legislation enacted by the respective state legislatures, subject to any constitutional challenge against such legislation in the future. All other references or definitions of ‘habitual offenders’ in the impugned prison manuals/rules are declared unconstitutional,” it held.

It said if there is no habitual offender legislation in a state, the Centre and state governments are directed to make necessary changes in the prison manuals according to the judgment.

“The police is directed to follow the guidelines… to ensure that members of denotified tribes are not subjected to arbitrary arrest,” it said.

It also took suo motu (on its own) cognisance of the discrimination inside prisons on any ground such as caste, gender, disability and listed the case titled as ‘In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India’ after three months and directed the Centre and the states to file compliance reports.

The verdict directed the district legal services authorities (DLSAs) and the Board of Visitors formed under the Model Prison Manual to jointly conduct regular inspections to identify whether caste-based discrimination or similar discriminatory practices, as highlighted in this judgment, are still taking place inside prisons.

“The DLSAs and the Board of Visitors shall submit a joint report of their inspection to the SLSAs (State Legal Services Authorities), which shall compile a common report and forward it to NALSA (National Legal Services Authority), which shall in turn file a joint status report before this Court in the above-mentioned suo motu writ petition,” it said.

The top court directed the Centre to circulate the copy of the judgment to chief secretaries of all states and Union territories within a period of three weeks.