The year that was—7 | Supreme Court on State-sanctioned caste-based discrimination inside Indian Prisons
This year, the Supreme Court struck down casteist prison manuals that had somehow survived the processes of democracy for several decades.
Nitin Saluja
Published on: 1 January 2025, 02:14 pm
IN a significant ruling titled Sukanya Shantha versus Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court has held that the practice of physical segregation and classification of prisoners based on their caste in various state prisons across India is discriminatory and violative of their fundamental right to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
This judgment marks a significant step towards dismantling caste-based inequalities in Indian prisons.
Individual states in India have the authority to frame laws on prisons and reformatories as these subjects are included in the ‘State List’ of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
A perusal of the state-specific prison manuals presents a bleak state of affairs concerning the day-to-day practical ordeals faced by lower-caste inmates since time immemorial, irrespective of the nature of the allegation or sentence imposed on them.
The most astonishing examples are from Bihar, West Bengal and Punjab, where the manuals explicitly state that sweepers must be chosen from the Mether or any other similar caste (such as Hari or Chandal castes), and prisoners from any other caste may volunteer to do the work. In other words, prisoners of such Scheduled Castes, unlike others, cannot refuse the sweeping work allotted to them.
Likewise, in Uttar Pradesh, the prison manual states, “Food shall be cooked and carried to the cells by prisoner-cooks of suitable caste, under the superintendence of a jail officer.” The West Bengal prison manual also permits high-caste prisoners to refrain from consuming the food prepared by existing cooks.
Regarding these prison manuals, three main concerns were flagged before the Supreme Court: (a) they directly use ‘caste’ as a yardstick to allot food duties to the prisoners; (b) they use vague terms such as “suitable caste” or “superior method of living” to benefit the higher caste prisoners, and (c) they target the members of denotified tribes.
The Supreme Court dealt with the aforesaid issues at length. It held that the extant provisions reinforce the harmful stereotype and ideology that persons belonging to lower-caste communities are inherently obligated to perform menial and degrading work. They not only cement the deep-rooted societal prejudices but also give legal sanction to caste-based discrimination and Untouchability, which is prohibited under Article 17 of the Constitution.
