SUKANYA SHANTHA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (03/10/2024) — Supreme Court headnote

AI-generated headnote. Verify against the judgment before relying on it. Paragraph numbers refer to the judgment.

Summary

In a writ petition by a journalist, the Court struck down provisions of several State prison manuals that allotted cleaning and scavenging to particular castes, reserved cooking for 'suitable' or high castes, and stereotyped denotified tribes as habitual offenders or as prone to escape, holding them violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23. It directed States, Union Territories and the Union to revise the manuals, the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons Act 2023 within three months, ordered caste columns removed from prison registers, and registered a suo motu case on discrimination inside prisons.

Issues

Whether State prison manual provisions that allot work, cooking or barracks on the basis of caste, or through proxies such as 'suitable caste', 'accustomed to menial duties' or 'superior mode of living', violate Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23 of the Constitution.
Whether provisions treating members of denotified or 'wandering' tribes as habitual criminals or prone to escape, or defining habitual offenders without reference to convictions, are constitutionally valid.
Whether the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 adequately address caste-based discrimination in prisons.
What directions are needed to end caste-based discrimination in prisons and to monitor compliance.

Provisions considered

Article 14, Constitution of IndiaClassification of prisoners must be functional and serve security, discipline or reformation. Caste has no rational nexus with those aims, and terms such as 'habit', 'custom', 'superior mode of living' and 'natural tendency to escape' are too vague to be an intelligible differentia. Rules using caste or its proxies therefore fail Article 14 and substantive equality. (¶¶ 25, 34, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170)
Article 15(1), Constitution of IndiaAssigning sweeping to marginalised castes and cooking to higher castes is direct discrimination. Facially neutral phrases such as 'menial' duties for those 'accustomed' to them are indirect discrimination that rests on and reinforces caste stereotypes. Discrimination against denotified tribes falls under the ground of 'caste'. (¶¶ 35, 48, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175)
Article 17, Constitution of IndiaTreating work as 'degrading or menial' for a 'scavenger class', requiring food to be cooked by a 'suitable caste', and letting high-caste prisoners refuse food cooked by others are practices of untouchability. Stereotyping 'criminal' or 'wandering' tribes resembles a form of untouchability. (¶¶ 49, 51, 54, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184)
Article 21, Constitution of IndiaPrisoners keep their dignity. Article 21 includes a right of members of marginalised communities to overcome caste barriers; rules fixing caste-based occupational roles deny individualised assessment and the chance to reform, and so violate the right to life and dignity. (¶¶ 55, 58, 67, 185, 186, 187, 188)
Article 23, Constitution of IndiaRead as a caste-conscious guarantee. Compelling prisoners from oppressed castes to clean latrines or sweep, without choice and only because of caste, is forced labour; degrading labour cannot be imposed on prisoners. (¶¶ 68, 82, 85, 189, 192, 193, 194, 195)
Rules 158 and 289(g), Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, 2022The remission rule for convicts 'of the scavenger class' and the rule exempting simple-imprisonment convicts from 'degrading or menial' duties unless their community is 'accustomed' to them were held to embody caste and untouchability and were struck down. (¶¶ 149, 176, 179, 190)
Rules 404, 694, 741, 793 and 1117, West Bengal Jail Code Rules for Superintendence and Management of Jails, 1967Rules barring 'wandering tribes' from night-guard duty, deferring to caste prejudices, requiring cooks 'of suitable caste', drawing sweepers from named Scheduled Castes, and making a high-caste objector the cook were held discriminatory and invalid. (¶¶ 149, 174, 177, 181, 185, 190)
Rules 36 and 411, Madhya Pradesh Jail Manual, 1987Rule 36 (mehtars attending latrines) was held to impose caste-based degrading labour. Rule 411 allowed any member of a denotified tribe, and anyone 'by habit' a gang member even without prior conviction, to be classified as a habitual criminal; this was held to stereotype denotified tribes. (¶¶ 149, 174, 178, 190)
AP Rules 217, 440, 448 and 1036; Kerala Rule 201; TN Rule 219; Odisha Rule 784; Rajasthan Rule 681, Andhra Pradesh Prison Rules, 1979 (and analogous Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Odisha and Rajasthan rules)Habitual-criminal definitions not tied to proved convictions, allotment of work 'with due regard to previous habits', exclusion of 'wandering or criminal tribe' members from extramural work, and preferential classes for those used to a 'superior mode of living' were held to be caste-based constructs. (¶¶ 149, 174, 182, 183, 184)
Definition of 'habitual offender'; paras 2.12.4, 17.22, 26.04 Note (ii) and labour provisions, Model Prison Manual, 2016Found inadequate. It leaves 'habitual offender' to other law or rules, prohibits caste-based classification only for women prisoners and caste-based work only in kitchens, and its labour and prison-offence provisions could be used against marginalised castes without an express prohibition. (¶¶ 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208)
Sections 2(12), 27, 28(5) and 60, Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023Faulted for not prohibiting caste discrimination although it lets officers use prisoners' services. The definition of a habitual offender as one 'committed to prison repeatedly' was held vague and over-broad, and the provisions on habitual offenders and police watch were held liable to misuse. (¶¶ 210, 211, 212)
Sections 2(1)(g), 5 and 7, Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013Held binding on prisons, so manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning of sewers or septic tanks cannot be permitted inside them. (¶ 207)

Held

Caste may be a basis of classification only to benefit victims of caste discrimination, never to discriminate against marginalised castes. In prisons, classification must rest on an objective assessment of each prisoner's correctional needs, such as work aptitude, accommodation and medical needs. Caste-based classification bears no rational nexus to security or reform and violates Article 14. (¶¶ 164, 165, 166, 169, 170)
Segregating prisoners into barracks by caste cannot be justified as a way to prevent caste clashes; that reasoning resembles 'separate but equal' and has no place under the Constitution. The Madras High Court's acceptance of caste-wise housing in C. Arul was disapproved. (¶¶ 166, 167)
Allotting sweeping and latrine work to particular castes and cooking to 'suitable' or high castes is direct discrimination under Article 15(1). Neutral-sounding phrases such as 'menial' duties for those 'accustomed' to them are indirect discrimination that perpetuates caste stereotypes. (¶¶ 171, 172, 173)
Labelling work as 'degrading or menial' for a 'scavenger class', reserving cooking for a 'suitable caste', and letting high-caste prisoners refuse food cooked by others are practices of untouchability forbidden by Article 17. (¶¶ 179, 180, 181)
Article 21 includes the right of persons from marginalised communities to overcome caste barriers. Caste-based allocation of prison work stifles their reformation and violates their dignity. Forcing them into degrading work because of caste is forced labour under Article 23, which is a caste-conscious provision. (¶¶ 187, 188, 192, 193, 194, 195)
Provisions that treat members of denotified or 'wandering' tribes as habitual criminals, as of bad character or as having a 'natural tendency to escape' revive colonial Criminal Tribes Act stereotypes and are discriminatory. A whole community cannot be branded habitual offenders. (¶¶ 174, 175, 183, 213, 218)
The validity of the State habitual offender laws was not decided, but the classification was called constitutionally suspect and States were urged to reconsider whether such laws are needed. Until then, 'habitual offender' in prison manuals must follow the State statute's definition, and where no such statute exists the references are struck down. (¶ 219)
The Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 do not adequately prohibit caste-based segregation, caste-based allocation of work beyond cooking, or caste privileges, and their habitual-offender provisions are vague. The Union must amend them. The 2013 manual scavenging law binds prisons, and no special treatment may be given to any group on the basis of caste. (¶¶ 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211, 212)
Legal services authorities have a central role in protecting prisoners' rights. District Legal Services Authorities and Boards of Visitors must jointly inspect prisons for caste-based discrimination, with reports passing through the State authorities to NALSA and on to the Court. (¶¶ 220, 223, 224, 225, 226, 231)

Result

Writ petition disposed of; impugned provisions declared unconstitutional. States and UTs must revise prison manuals, and the Union the 2016 Model Manual and 2023 Model Act, within three months. Habitual-offender references must follow State statutes or go, and caste columns in prison registers must be deleted. Police must follow Arnesh Kumar and Amanatullah Khan for denotified tribes. Suo motu case 'In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India' registered, with compliance reports and joint DLSA and Board of Visitors inspections.