The Chief Justice of India (CJI) noted that the Centre’s 2023 Model Law on Prisons fails to address caste-based discrimination within jails. The CJI declared that inequality of any form within prison systems is unconstitutional and ordered immediate reforms. This judgment highlights the importance of upholding equality and human rights for all prisoners, regardless of caste or background.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday pointed out that the Centre’s ‘Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act’ of 2023 lacks any reference to the prohibition of caste-based discrimination in jails.
This observation made by a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justices J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, in a landmark judgment that banned caste-based discrimination in prisons, including the division of manual labor, segregation of barracks, and bias against prisoners from de-notified tribes and habitual offenders.
Read Also: [BREAKING] Supreme Court Strikes Down Rules Enabling Caste Discrimination in Prisons
The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), after consulting various stakeholders, drafted the legislation to replace outdated “colonial” laws. The MHA described the Model Act as a comprehensive document covering various aspects of prison management, such as security, safety, technological interventions, segregation of prisoners, and provisions for women inmates, among others.
However, Chief Justice Chandrachud, in his judgment, expressed concern, noting,
“The Model Act does not contain a reference to the prohibition of caste-based discrimination.”
He emphasized that this omission is significant because the Act empowers prison officers to “utilize the services of prisoners” in prison administration and management.
While the Model Prison Manual of 2016 includes several provisions addressing caste discrimination in prisons, the 2023 Model Act “completely avoided any such mention,” according to the judgment. The court also criticized the definition of “Habitual Offender” in the new law, labelling it “problematic.”
The Supreme Court highlighted concerns with the definition of “Habitual Offender” in the Centre’s Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, stating that it is vague and overly broad.
The Act defines a habitual offender as “a prisoner who is committed to prison repeatedly for a crime.” The Court found the phrase “committed to prison repeatedly” problematic, remarking that “it can be used to declare anyone as a habitual offender, even if they have not been convicted for a crime.”
The Court also examined historical manuals and rules to assess whether caste was a factor in classification before the Constitution came into force. Referring to the Committee on Prison Discipline (1836-38), the judgment noted,
“According to the Committee, forcing a man of ‘higher caste’ to work at any trade would ‘disgrace him’ and his family, and would be viewed as cruelty.”
However, the Court made it clear that it would not adopt the colonial approach, stating,
“The impugned provisions shall be examined on the basis of principles laid under the Constitution.”
The judgment also acknowledged that caste can be an intelligible principle of classification, as it has been used to implement protective policies for marginalized groups. The Constitution prohibits caste-based discrimination under Article 15(1) and envisions a society free from caste prejudice.
The Court emphasized,
“Caste cannot be a ground to discriminate against members of marginalized castes,” and any caste-based classification must “withstand judicial scrutiny” to ensure it does not perpetuate discrimination.
It concluded that while caste-based classifications are allowed under certain constitutional provisions, they are “strictly regulated” to promote equality and social justice.
The Supreme Court emphasized that valid classification in prisons must serve functional purposes, focusing on security, discipline, and the reform and rehabilitation of inmates.
It noted that while this has been the objective,
“There is no nexus between classifying prisoners based on caste and achieving the objectives of security or reform.”
The Court declared that limitations on inmates which are cruel or irrelevant to their rehabilitation are inherently “unreasonable, arbitrary, and constitutionally suspect.”
Inmates are entitled to fair treatment that supports their rehabilitation, and any classification must aim toward this goal.
The Court cited,
“Its 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.”
The judgment warned that segregating prisoners based on caste would only reinforce caste differences and animosity, rather than promote rehabilitation.
The Court declared,
“We have held that assigning cleaning and sweeping work to marginalized castes while assigning cooking to higher castes is a violation of Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, gender, or place of birth.
The bench also referred to a law in Uttar Pradesh, which states that prisoners serving simple imprisonment should not be assigned degrading work unless their caste traditionally performed such jobs.
The Court firmly rejected this approach, stating,
“We hold that no group is born as a scavenger class or destined to do menial jobs.”
The notion that only certain castes are suited for tasks like cooking or sweeping was described as “entirely opposed to substantive equality and a facet of institutional discrimination.”