SC Sets Aside Jail Manual Rules for Promoting Caste-based Discrimination

NEW DELHI: In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday outlawed caste-based discrimination against prisoners, holding that "the right to live with dignity extends even to the incarcerated".

Terming as "unconstitutional" the prison manual rules of 10 states for fostering biases on caste lines against jail inmates like division of manual labour, segregation of barracks and systemic prejudice against prisoners of denotified tribes and habitual offenders.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said, "Criminal laws of the colonial era continue to impact the postcolonial world."

The apex court directed the Centre and the states to amend their prison manuals and laws within three months and file compliance reports before it.

"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 and rules in accordance with this judgment within a period of three months," the top court said.

The bench directed 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.

The top court 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.

The top court 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.

"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.

The “caste” column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts’ or prisoners’ registers inside the prisons should be deleted, the bench said in its order.

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 wthatstipulate that "sweepers shall be chosen from the "Mehtar or Hari caste", also is part of discrimination, it said.

The PIL petitioner, Sukanya Shantha, a journalist, wrote an article -- From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System -- which was published on December 10, 2020. The article highlighted caste-based discrimination in the prisons in the country. The petitioner had sought directions for repeal of the offending provisions in state prison manuals.

By an order dated 10 July 2024, the top court reserved judgment in the matter.

The 148-page judgment ordered deletion of the “caste” column and any references to caste of jailed undertrials or convicted prisoners' registers inside the prisons.

The verdict said: "The right to live with dignity extends even to the incarcerated. Not providing dignity to prisoners is a relic of the colonisers and pre-colonial mechanisms, where oppressive systems were designed to dehumanise 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, focussing on the changed legal framework brought out by the Constitution, has recognised that even prisoners are entitled to the right to dignity."

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

Highlighting 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. The dignity of human existence is fully realised only when one leads a quality life, Justice Chandrachud added.

The CJI said, “The Model Act does not contain a reference to the prohibition of caste-based discrimination. This is concerning because the Act empowers the officer-in-charge of the prison to ‘utilise the services of prisoners' for ‘administration and management of the prisons'”.

While the Model Prison Manual of 2016 refers to the prohibition of caste discrimination in prisons in several provisions, the Model Act of 2023 has “completely avoided any such mention”, reads the verdict.

The top court also flagged concerns over the definition of “habitual offender” under the 2023 law and termed it “problematic”. The 2023 law states that “habitual offender means a prisoner who is committed to prison repeatedly for a crime.”

The phrase “committed to prison repeatedly” is vague and “it can be used to declare anyone as a habitual offender, even if they have not been convicted for a crime,” the judgment said.

The top court also 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 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.