New Delhi. In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Thursday banned caste-based discrimination in prisons and termed the prison rules of 10 states that allow such discrimination as “unconstitutional”. These discriminations include division of manual labor, segregation of barracks, and favoritism against denotified tribes and habitual criminals.
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra said that “prisoners also have the right to live with dignity.” The bench said, “The criminal laws of the colonial period are influencing the post-colonial period as well.” The bench asked the Center and states to amend their prison rules and laws within three months and file compliance reports before it.
The bench took note of certain discriminatory provisions of the jail rules of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Kerala, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh and rejected them. Referring to the right against untouchability, the bench said that Article 17 states that all people are born equal. He said, “No stigma can be attached to the existence, touch or presence of any person. Through Article 17, our Constitution strengthens the equality of status of every citizen….”
Citing an example, the Court said that convicts from communities lower in the caste hierarchy are expected to continue their traditional occupations in prison and the caste hierarchy outside the prison is replicated within the prison as well. The Court said, “Rules which specifically or indirectly discriminate between prisoners on the basis of caste identity are violative of Article 14 due to illegal classification and violation of fundamental equality.” For example, rules regarding assignment of sweeping duties, which provide that “sweeping workers will be selected from the Scavenger or Hari caste”, also amount to discrimination, it said.
Delivering the 148-page judgment on a PIL filed by journalist Sukanya Shanta, the Chief Justice also ordered removal of the ‘caste’ column and any reference to caste from the registers of undertrial or convicted prisoners inside jails. Sukanya Shanta had also written an article on the caste-based discrimination prevalent in jails.
The bench said in the decision, “Prisoners also have the right to live with dignity. “Not providing respect to prisoners is a sign of the colonial period, when they were deprived of human qualities.” “The authoritarian regimes of the pre-Constitution era viewed prisons not only as places of imprisonment but also as tools of domination,” the judgment said. “This Court, focusing on the changed legal framework brought about by the Constitution, has held that prisoners also have the right to dignity.” Referring to fundamental rights such as equality, life with dignity, abolition of untouchability and right against slavery, the judgment said that in a post-constitutional society, the law should provide equal protection of the law to all its citizens. Positive steps should be taken for this.
The judgment states that human dignity is a constitutional value and constitutional goal. Citing the judgements, the bench said, “Human dignity is an integral part of human existence and the two cannot be separated” and also includes “the right to protection against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”. The Chief Justice (CJI) said that there is a close relationship between dignity and quality of life. He said that the dignity of human existence is fully realized only when a person lives a quality life.
The bench said, “These provisions violate Articles 14 (equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 17 (abolition of untouchability), 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and 23 (right against forced labor) of the Constitution.” Due to this it is declared unconstitutional. “All States and Union Territories are directed to revise their prison manuals/rules in accordance with this judgment within a period of three months.” It ordered the Center to make necessary changes in the Model Jail Rules, 2016 and the Model Jail and Correctional Services Act, 2023 as per the judgment to remove caste-based discrimination within three months.
It said, “The reference to ‘habitual offenders’ in the Jail Manual/Model Jail Manual will be as per the definition given in the Habitual Offenders Law enacted by the respective State Legislatures, subject to any future constitutional challenge against such law.” “All other mentions or definitions of ‘habitual offenders’ in the Jail Manual/Rules under consideration are declared unconstitutional.” It said that if a state does not have a habitual offender law, then the Central and State governments are directed to make necessary changes in the jail rules as per the judgment.
“The police are directed to follow the guidelines…to ensure that members of the denotified tribes are not arrested arbitrarily,” it said. The apex court also took up cases of caste-based discrimination inside prisons. Took cognizance and listed the matter after three months with the heading ‘Regarding discrimination inside prisons’. It asked the states to submit compliance reports of the decision.
The judgment directs the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) and the Board of Visitors constituted under the Model Jail Rules to jointly conduct regular inspections to ascertain whether caste-based discrimination or similar discriminatory practices, as per It has been told in this decision, whether they are still happening inside the jails or not.
It said, “DLSA and the Visitors Board will submit a joint report of their inspection to SLSA (State Legal Services Authority), which will prepare a common report and send it to NALSA (National Legal Services Authority), which has initiated the above suo motu Will file a joint status report before this Court in the said writ petition.” The top court directed the Center to circulate a copy of the judgment to the chief secretaries of all states and union territories within a period of three weeks.
The Supreme Court said that there is no reference to banning caste-based discrimination in prisons in the provisions of the Centre’s ‘Model Jail and Correctional Services Act’ 2023. The Union Home Ministry, in consultation with various stakeholders, had prepared a draft law to replace the earlier “colonial laws” which were “found outdated and obsolete.” The Home Ministry told the bench that the Model Act “is a comprehensive document, which covers all the relevant aspects of prison management, such as security, scientific and technological interventions, segregation of prisoners, special provisions for women prisoners, treatment of prisoners in prison, Taking appropriate action against criminal activities, granting parole and furlough to prisoners, their education, vocational training and skill development etc.
The Chief Justice said in his judgment, “There is no reference to the prohibition of caste-based discrimination in the Model Law. This is worrying because the Act empowers the officer in charge of the prison to ‘utilize the services of prisoners’ for the ‘administration and management of prisons’.” The judgment said that the 2016 Model Prison Rules contain several provisions prohibiting caste discrimination in prisons, while the 2023 Model Law “completely avoids any such mention.”