The Supreme Court recently sent out a clarion call to end caste discrimination in Indian jails and do away with caste-based stereotypes in jail manuals when it came to the division of labour in prison barracks [Sukanya Shantha vs Union of India and ors].

In a judgment delivered on October 3, a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra made it clear that caste-based discrimination in prisons would not be tolerated.

The Court even registered a suo motu case to monitor the issue.

It warned States that they would be held liable if any caste discrimination is found in prisons.

Here are ten key observations from the verdict:

1. Criminal laws must not endorse colonial or pre-colonial philosophy

Criminal laws in modern times, being 'the strongest expression of the State’s power' must ensure that they do not deny equality before the law, the Court said.

The Court noted that during the colonial era, the British did not interfere with caste discrimination inside prisons in India, but that this approach cannot be allowed to continue today.

"Upholding of caste differences by the British inside the prisons reflected their overall support to legitimizing the law of caste. However, this Court cannot adopt the approach taken by the colonial administrators," the Court said.

2. Discrimination against denotified tribes must end

The Court recounted that the British colonial regime had introduced (now-repealed) laws categorising certain oppressed groups (men of wandering tribes) as 'criminal tribes' based on stereotypical assumptions.

The stereotypes attached to such groups or 'denotified tribes' have been reinforced in many prison manuals as they are often classified as 'habitual offenders' even without being convicted for any offence, the Court found.

This cannot continue, it said.

"Once labelled a criminal tribe, individuals from these communities faced systematic discrimination in employment, education, and social services. The stigma attached to these labels extended beyond legal frameworks and became a part of social consciousness," the Court found.

3. Caste cannot be a ground to discriminate

"While caste-based classifications are permissible under certain constitutional provisions, they are strictly regulated to ensure they serve the purpose of promoting equality and social justice ... 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," the Court said.

There is no nexus between classifying prisoners based on caste and securing the objectives of security or reform, the Court added.

4. Rivalry between caste groups not a ground for segregation

The Court noted that in Tamil Nadu, an instance was reported where the prison officials segregated prisoners based on their caste on concerns that two rival caste groups may clash with each other.

Criticising such an approach, the Court said:

"It is the responsibility of the prison administration to maintain discipline inside the prison without resorting to extreme measures that promote caste-based segregation ... Even if there is rivalry between individuals of two groups, it does not require segregating the groups permanently. Discipline cannot be secured at the altar of violation of fundamental rights and correctional needs of inmates. The prison authorities ought to be able to tackle perceived threats to discipline by means that are not rights-effacing and inherently discriminatory."

5. Right to overcome caste barriers under Article 21

The Supreme Court held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India also includes a right to overcome caste barriers.

"Article 21 envisages the growth of individual personality. Caste prejudices and discrimination hinder the growth of one’s personality. Therefore, Article 21 provides for the right to overcome caste barriers as a part of the right to life of individuals from marginalized communities … When Prison Manuals restrict the reformation of prisoners from marginalized communities, they violate their right to life," the judgment said.

6. On menial tasks being assigned to oppressed castes

The Court said that when individuals are made to do menial or degrading work by citing their caste background, it would amount to making them do forced labour which is impermissible.

"Imposing labour or work, which is considered impure or low-grade, upon the members of marginalized communities amounts to 'forced labour' under Article 23 ... Forcing marginalized caste inmates to perform tasks like cleaning latrines or sweeping, without providing them any choice in the matter and based purely on their caste, constitutes a form of coercion," the Court said.

7. Remedying caste discrimination requires multi-faceted approach

"Discrimination against the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Denotified Tribes has continued in a systemic manner. Remedying systemic discrimination requires concrete multi-faceted efforts by all institutions," the Court said.

8. No group can be labelled "scavenger class"

The Court said that the reference to 'scavenger class' is a practice of the caste system and untouchability.

"No social group is born as a 'scavenger class.' They are forced to undertake certain jobs that are considered ‘menial’ and polluting based on the notions of birth-based purity and pollution," the Court observed.

9. Refusal to check caste discrimination cements such practices

“Refusal to check caste practices or prejudices amounts to cementing of such practices. If such practices are based on the oppression of the marginalized castes, then such practices cannot be left untouched. The Constitution mandates an end to caste discrimination and untouchability," the Court said.

10. Gaps in Act and Manual

Both the Model Prison Manual of 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act of 2023 was criticised for leaving the definition of “habitual offender” vague, which allowed States to define the term based on stereotypical assumptions against denotified tribes.

They also did not contain a clear prohibition on caste discrimination except with respect to the task of cooking in the Model Prison Manual, the Court found.

They also did not contain any reference to the law against manual scavenging.

No prisoner must be made to do manual scavenging or hazardous sewage/ septic tank cleaning work, the Court made it clear.

[Read Judgment]