[BREAKING] Supreme Court Strikes Down Rules Enabling Caste Discrimination in Prisons

The Supreme Court Today (Oct 3) made it clear that caste-based discrimination in prisons across the country would not be tolerated and registered a suo motu case to monitor the issue. The plea referred to the Kerala Prison Rules and said they lay down a distinction between a habitual and a re-convicted convict, holding that those who are by habit a robber, house breaker, dacoit or thief should be classified and separated from other convict.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, emphasized that caste-based discrimination within the prison system will not be tolerated. The Court registered a suo motu case to monitor this issue across the country, reinforcing its commitment to uphold equality and prevent any form of discrimination based on caste within prisons.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, issued a stern warning to all States, stating that they would be held accountable if any form of caste-based discrimination is found in their prison systems.

The Court made it abundantly clear that prisoners belonging to marginalized or oppressed castes cannot be assigned menial or degrading tasks solely based on their caste. In its ruling, the Court struck down various state prison manual provisions that enabled such practices.

“We have held that assigning cleaning and sweeping to marginalized and assigning cooking to higher caste is nothing but a violation of Article 15. Such indirect uses of phrases which target so-called lower castes cannot be used within our constitutional framework, even if caste is not explicitly mentioned, ‘menial’ etc. targets the same,”

-the Court declared.

Furthermore, the Court ordered the removal of any references to caste details of prisoners from prison registrars, emphasizing the need for reform in prison documentation practices.

“Assigning cleaning and sweeping to marginalized and assigning cooking to higher caste is nothing but a violation of Article 15,” the Supreme Court ruled, further adding that, “All such provisions (enabling caste discrimination) are held to be unconstitutional. All States are directed to make changes in accordance with the judgment. References to habitual offenders shall be in reference to the habitual offender legislations, and all such references of habitual offenders in state prison manuals are declared as unconstitutional. Caste column in convict or undertrial registrars shall be deleted. This court takes suo motu cognizance of discrimination inside prisons and registry is directed to list In re: discrimination inside prisons after three months and States shall submit compliance report with this judgment before the court.”

The Court also addressed the issue of discrimination against members of denotified tribes, who are often unfairly categorized as habitual criminals. It criticized certain prison manuals that continue to reflect such prejudiced views and labeled this approach as incorrect.

“This court takes suo motu cognizance of caste discrimination inside prisons,”

-the Supreme Court said, highlighting its proactive stance in addressing systemic caste-based discrimination.

The judgment underscored the fact that caste-based discrimination can be both direct and indirect, and that stereotypes often fuel such bias. The State has a positive obligation to prevent and dismantle these discriminatory practices, the Bench asserted.

Additionally, the Court emphasized the importance of preserving the dignity of prisoners, stating,

“Not providing dignity to prisoners is a relic of colonial period where they were dehumanised. The Constitution mandates that prisoners have to be treated humanely and prison system must be aware of mental and physical state of prisoners.”

The Court also took specific issue with the Prison Manual in Uttar Pradesh, which contains a provision stating that no person undergoing simple imprisonment should be made to do menial work “unless his caste is used to do such jobs.”

The Bench harshly criticized this rule, observing:

“We hold that no group is born as scavenger class or to do or not do menial jobs. Classes who can cook and who cannot cook are aspects of untouchability, which cannot be permitted. Class-based prejudice is perpetuated when denotified tribe members are treated as criminal and dishonest from birth. We have reimagined Article 21 with a section on right to overcome caste-based discrimination.”

“No group is born as scavenger class or to do or not do menial jobs,”

-the Supreme Court declared, asserting that the practice of selecting prisoners for certain tasks based on caste is entirely opposed to the principles of substantive equality.

The Court further criticized prison manual rules that dictated sweepers should be selected from particular castes, such as the Hari or Chandal castes, describing such rules as “entirely opposed to substantive equality.”

“Such practices lead to unfair division of labour in the prisons. The type of labour assignment based on caste etc. cannot be permitted. Article 23 strikes at this aspect,”

-the Court stated.

In its concluding remarks, the Supreme Court made it clear that no prisoner should be forced to undertake hazardous work, such as cleaning sewer tanks, reinforcing its stand on preserving human dignity and equality within the prison system.

BACKGROUND

The Supreme Court on July 10th reserved its verdict in petition by a journalist claiming that prison manuals in several States encourage caste discrimination in jails. During the hearing today, CJI Chandrachud highlighted the importance of altering what happens on the ground since instructions by States to not indulge in such practices are not always followed.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized the necessity of bringing about real changes on the ground. The Bench pointed out that despite state instructions to avoid such discriminatory practices, these guidelines are often ignored in practice.

The apex court had in January this year sought responses from the Centre and 11 states, including Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, on the plea.

It had taken note of the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel that jail manuals of these states discriminate in the allocation of work inside their prisons and inmates’ caste determines the places where they are lodged.

The plea referred to the Kerala Prison Rules and said they lay down a distinction between a habitual and a re-convicted convict, holding that those who are by habit a robber, house breaker, dacoit or thief should be classified and separated from other convicts.

It claimed that the West Bengal Jail Code lays down that work in prison should be designated by caste, such as cooking work will be undertaken by dominant castes and sweeping work shall be undertaken by people from particular castes.

While issuing notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and others, the apex court had asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to assist it in dealing with the issues raised in the plea filed by Sukanya Shantha, a native of Kalyan in Maharashtra.

Previous Report: “Will Hold the People Responsible in our Judgment” : CJI Reserves Judgment in PIL on Caste Discrimination in Prisons

The Bench had noted the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel that despite the amendments which were made to the state prison manuals in accordance with the model prison manuals formulated by the Union Home Ministry, caste discrimination was reinforced across prisons in the states.

“This petition is filed in public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to bring to the notice of this court the continued existence and enforcement of rules and practices under various state prison manuals that are manifestly grounded in and reinforce caste-based discrimination,”

-the plea said.

It said the plea seeks appropriate directions for bringing such manuals and prison practices in conformity with the Constitution.

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Discrimination In Jails

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES