Court Action against caste-based discrimination in prisons

INTRODUCTION:

The Supreme Court in the writ petition of Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India pronounced its remarkable judgment on 3.10.2024. This decision ordered for the removal of discriminatory rules from prison manual, which unfairly treated the prisoners based on caste. The court has granted states three months to remove the discriminatory rules from prison manual and update them accordingly. It also ordered deleting the ‘caste column’ and any references to caste from registers of under trials and convicts maintained in prisons.

This decision will have a far-reaching impact on society as it protects prisoners’ right to equality, dignity and freedom from caste-based discrimination and disseminates the message that there shall be no tolerance for any discrimination at any level in the country. A comprehensive analysis of the background, legal provisions and reasoning of the judgment will enable us to fathom the deep significance that it holds for our evolution towards a modern, liberal and discrimination-free society.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

The current development comes to light due to a petition filed by journalist Sukanya Shantha to challenge discriminatory provisions in the prison manual of different states including Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh.

These provisions emanate from the colonial era, when colonial state had a barbaric attitude towards the tribal communities. The Criminal Tribes Act, of 1871 was one of the prominent examples of this. It labelled around 200 communities under several provinces as “criminal communities”. It made significant efforts to identify several communities as born offenders.

The construction of a social division was well solidified and concentrated by the Britishers to implement the principles of Divide and Rule. The Act was repealed in 1952 but their ideologies were eventually perpetuated even after that period as they already got deeply enrooted in the society.

One of the impugned provisions was Rajasthan Prison Rules,2022. It states that:

“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.”

The quoted provision reflects the mindset of biases and prejudice towards the tribe and they are also explicitly termed as “criminal tribes”. Considering prison is a state subject it becomes duty of the states to maintain and provide for constitutional ethos.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION:

The current judgment was reasoned comprehensively by, widely interpreting various related Articles of the constitution, and also accounted for the constitution of emancipation, equality and dignity. The articles interpreted are Article 14 for contours of equality, Article 15 for non-discrimination, Article 17 for ban on untouchability, Article 21 for life and dignity and Article 23 for prohibition of forced labour and human trafficking.

The court noted that “the right to live with dignity extends even to the incarcerated...... 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.”

While considering Article 15(1) the apex court mentioned that, it imposes an obligation upon the state not to discriminate against citizens on any of several grounds and if it does that then it is considered to be discrimination of the highest form. “The state is expected to prevent discrimination not to perpetuate it.”

In this conclusion, the revered court has referenced landmark judgments such as case of Young Lawyers Association v. The State of, Kerela, as it provided a broader interpretation of Article 15 and held that the discrimination of women on the basis of their sex only was unconstitutional. This ruling corresponds to the broader opinion that there be shall some reasonable criteria or intelligible differentia for the purpose of division in some aspect and sole discrimination on basis of caste, creed, sex, religion or place of birth is highly objectionable and needs to be disregarded.

The opinion of Justice Krishna Iyer in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration on unconstitutionality regarding inhumane conditions under prison authorities was also considered, as he strictly expounded that violation of fundamental rights is an institutional outrage in our system and there should be proper accountability for rule of law in the four boundaries of the prison. Accountability of fundamental rights in prison would not allow for any discrimination to take place in there.

These references and opinions solidified the pleading forthe removal of discriminatory provisions in the prison manuals and will also conform to the basic rights provided in the constitution and as envisaged by the constitutional frame workers.

The CJI in his decision quoted different philosophers and activists to conclude that we need an institutional approach for the removal of discriminatory practices that treat marginalized communities without empathy and there is a need to identify discrimination in all spaces even if it is in the state bound prison and do away with them at the ground level for a society as envisaged in the constitution.

CONCLUSION:

This decision will be considered a landmark judgment in the coming years due to the impact that it will bring out the prisoners of the marginalized society. It will have far-reaching consequences as it will help in breaking the shackles of casteism which got more solidified in the colonial era and still prevails in the society up to an extent. The moral significance is appreciated as it will help in equal treatment of prisoners. Proper implementation across various levels of prisons is an enormous challenge, to tackle this an inspection by the District Legal Services Authority [DLSA] and the board of visitors formed under the Model Prison Manual 2016 is directed on a regular basis.

While this judgment needs to be appreciated and recognized for its significance, there is a need for judicial oversight on allegations of lack of oversight, inhumane attitude of authorities and irrational application of laws. Apart from this, proper training and awareness should be provided to authorities in charge and strict course of action needs to be taken if the discussed instances are found in the prisons. A secure and discrimination-free environment in the state-bound prison will disseminate a message of equality, morality and humaneness in the society.

References:

1. Sukanya Shantha Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. [2024] MANU SC 1084.
2. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala [2018] MANU SC 1094.
3. Sunil Batra (I) v. Delhi Administration, [1978] MANU SC 0184.
4. Criminal Tribes Act, 1871
5. Kshitiz Bhardwaj, ‘Caste-based labour division in prisons is unconstitutional: Supreme Court’(Business standard, 9 October, 2024) accessed on 12 October 2024.