Sukanya Shantha vs Union of India & Ors.

Prisons – Prison Manuals – Plea that Prison Manuals cast disparate burdens on prisoners based on their caste-identity, if violative of Art.14 – Caste, if an intelligible and rational principle of classification and has a rational nexus with the object of the classification:

Held: Caste can be an intelligible principle of classification as it has been used to create protective policies for the marginalized castes – Constitution recognises caste as a proscribed ground of discrimination u/Art.15(1), and envisions a society free from casteprejudices – However, caste cannot be a ground to discriminate against members of marginalized castes – Any use of caste as a basis for classification must withstand judicial scrutiny to ensure it does not perpetuate discrimination against the oppressed castes – 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 – Classification of prisoners has been considered both from the point of view of security and discipline as well as reform and rehabilitation – However, there is no nexus between classifying prisoners based on caste and securing the objectives of security or reform – Limitations on inmates that are cruel, or irrelevant to rehabilitation are per se unreasonable, arbitrary and constitutionally suspect – Differentia between inmates that distinguishes on the basis of “habit”, “custom”, “superior mode of living”, and “natural tendency to escape”, is unconstitutionally vague and indeterminate – Objective of classification for labour for treatment and for conferment of entitlements such as remissions has to be maximisation of the reformatory potential of prisons – Such classification should be based solely on the correctional needs of the individual prisoner – Thus, 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 Art. 14 on account of invalid classification and subversion of substantive equality – Constitution of India – Arts.14, 15(1). [Paras 164-170, 196]

Prisons – Prison Manuals – Plea that provisions thereunder, discriminate against marginalized castes and act to the advantage of certain castes, by assigning cleaning and sweeping work to marginalized castes, while allowing the high castes to do cooking, which is direct discrimination u/Art.15(1):

Held: Manuals/rules suffer from indirect discrimination by using broad terms which act to the disadvantage of the marginalized castes – Phrases such as “menial” jobs to be performed by castes “accustomed to perform such duties” may appear to be facially neutral, but refer to marginalized communities, given the history of systemic discrimination against them – Such indirect usages of phrases, which target the so-called ‘lower castes’, cannot be permitted in the constitutional framework – Phrases, carry an embedded bias that disadvantages marginalized communities by reinforcing historical patterns of labour based on caste – These provisions disproportionately harm marginalized castes, perpetuate caste-based labour divisions and reinforce social hierarchies – Manuals/rules are also based on and reinforce stereotypes against the marginalized castes as also denotified tribes – These stereotypes not only demean and stigmatize marginalized communities and denotified tribes but also serve to maintain and legitimize a social hierarchy that goes against the constitutional values of equality – Tendency to treat members of denotified tribes as habitual to crime or having bad character reinforces a stereotype, which excludes them from meaningful participation in social life – Discrimination against denotified tribes is prohibited under the ground of “caste” in Art. 15(1), as the colonial regime considered them as belonging to separate hereditary castes – Thus, the impugned provisions violative of Art. 15 – Constitution of India – Art.15. [Paras 171-175, 196]

Prisons – Prison Manuals – Plea that provisions thereunder, “practice” of untouchability, division of work on the basis of caste, is a practice of untouchability prohibited under the Constitution:

Held: Prison manuals allot tasks of a barber to individuals from a certain caste, while sweeping work is allowed to Mehtar/Hari/Chandal or similar castes – This is a caste-based delegation of work based on the perceptions of the caste system that certain castes are meant to do jobs of sweeping – Rule that a prisoner of a high caste be allowed to refuse the food cooked by other castes is a legal sanction by the State authorities to untouchability and the caste system – Provisions that “men of wandering tribes” or “criminal tribes” have a “strong natural tendency to escape” or are by “habit” accustomed to theft reflects a stereotype that has its basis in the colonial understanding of India’s caste system – These stereotypes not only criminalize entire communities but also reinforce castebased prejudices – They resemble a form of untouchability, as they assign certain negative traits to specific groups based on identity, perpetuating their marginalization and exclusion – Once labelled a criminal tribe, individuals from these communities faced systematic discrimination in employment, education, and social services – Provision that “non-habitual” prisoner is “by social status” and “habit of life accustomed to superior mode of living” is another caste-based construct – It is only an injustice but also reinforced existing power structures, ensuring that marginalized groups were trapped in cycles of poverty and discrimination, unable to transcend the stigmatization they faced – Thus, impugned provisions violative of Art.17 – Constitution of India – Art.17. [Paras 181, 183-184, 196]

Prisons – Prison Manuals – Right to overcome caste prejudices u/Art.21 – Provisions under Prison Manuals, fostering the antiquated notions of fitness of a particular community for a certain designated job, reinforcing occupational immobility of prisoners belonging to certain castes, if violative of Art.21: Held: Art.21 provides for the right to overcome caste barriers as a part of the right to life of individuals from marginalized communities – Protection provided by Art.21 can be seen as a constitutional guarantee that individuals from marginalized communities should have the freedom to break free from these traditional social restrictions – It extends beyond mere survival to ensure that they can flourish in an environment of equality, respect, and dignity, without being subjected to caste-based discrimination which stifles their personal growth – When caste prejudices manifest in institutional settings, such as prisons, they create further restrictions on the personal development and reformation of individuals from marginalized communities – When Prison Manuals restrict the reformation of prisoners from marginalized communities, they violate their right to life – When prisoners from marginalized communities are subjected to discriminatory practices based on caste, their inherent dignity is violated – Thus, the impugned provisions violative of Art.21 – Constitution of India – Art.21. [Paras 185-188, 196]

Prisons – Prison Manuals – Plea that provisions as regards caste-based division of labour/work, forced labour and violative of Art.23:

Held: Persons from specific communities performing honourable tasks, while those from marginalized communities are forced into undesirable work leads to unfair distribution of labour within the prison system – It perpetuates the idea that some individuals are inherently suited to low-status labour based solely on their birth, reinforcing deep-rooted caste inequalities – Imposing labour or work, which is considered impure or low-grade like cleaning latrines and sweeping work, upon members of marginalized communities amounts to forced labour u/Art.23 – Forced to undertake the menial tasks simply because of their caste background robs prisoners of the element of choice that other prisoners enjoy and constitutes form of coercion – Art.23 was incorporated to protect the members of oppressed castes from exploitative practices, where their labour is taken advantage of, and without any adequate return – However, prison rules, by exploiting labour of the oppressed castes, perpetuate the same injustice to guard against which Art.23 was inserted – Assigning labour based on caste background strips individuals of their liberty to engage in meaningful work, and denies them the opportunity to rise above the constraints imposed by their social identity – Thus, impugned provisions violative of Art.23 – Constitution of India – Art.23. [Paras 189, 191-196] Prisons – Prison Manuals – Plea as regards existing discrimination and continued targeting of the members of the Denotified Tribes, and classification of “habitual offender”: Held: Classification of “habitual offender” emerged prior to repeal of the Criminal Tribes Act – After repeal several States enacted new habitual offender laws in their jurisdictions – Most States adopted an identical definition of “habitual offenders”, referring to a person who has been sentenced on conviction for at least three occasion to “a substantive term of imprisonment” for any of more of the specified offences – However, in some States, they were used to refer to members belonging to criminal tribes/denotified tribes, and applying that logic, several Prison Manuals/Rules have also referred to “habitual offender” to mean members of Denotified Tribes or wandering tribes, which cannot be accepted – Whole community ought not to have either been declared criminal tribe in the past or habitual offender in the present – Classification of “habitual offender” has been used to target members of Denotified Tribes – State governments to reconsider the usage of various habitual offender laws-whether such laws are needed in a constitutional system – In the meantime, definition of “habitual offender” in the prison manuals/rules to be in accordance with the definition provided in the habitual offender legislation enacted by the respective State legislature, subject to any constitutional challenge against such legislation in the future – In case, there is no habitual offender legislation in State, references to habitual offenders directly or indirectly, struck down as unconstitutional – Union and State governments to make necessary changes in the prison manuals in line with this judgment. [Paras 213-219] Prisons – Prison reforms – Role of Legal Service Authorities in prisons:

Held: In order to ensure that the fundamental rights of prisoners are not violated, role of legal services authorities crucial – Right to free legal aid and inspection by Legal Services Authorities including by a Board of Visitors, essential ingredient. [Paras 220, 227] Prisons – Prison Manuals – History of “Caste” in Prison Manuals – Stated. [Paras 151-160]

Constitution of India – Nature of:

Held : It is an emancipatory document – It provides equal citizenship to all citizens of India – Constitution is not just a legal document, but gave a dignified identity to all citizens of India – It eliminated the legality of caste-based discrimination, thereby raising the human dignity of the marginalised communities – Constitution mandates the replacement of fundamental wrongs with fundamental rights – Through its provisions, it displaced a centuries-old caste-based hierarchical social order that did not recognize the principle of individual equality – It negated the ideals of social hierarchy – Constitution is the embodiment of the aspirations of the millions of caste-oppressed communities, which hoped for a better future in independent India – Chapter on fundamental rights places the provisions on equality, non-discrimination, equality of opportunity, affirmative action, abolition of untouchability, freedom of speech and expression, right to life, and prohibition of forced labour together – Constitution thus complements the basic principles of constitutionalism with provisions designed specifically to address India’s social problems – Constitution thus stands as a testament to the fight against historical injustices and for the establishment of an egalitarian social order – It aims to prevent caste-based discrimination – It empowers the State to enact appropriate legislation or take executive measures to tackle caste-based discrimination. [Paras 14, 15, 17, 23]

Constitution of India – Art. 14 – Classification under – Constitutional standards:

Held : Constitution permits classification if there is intelligible differentia and reasonable nexus with the object sought – Classification test cannot be merely applied as a mathematical formula to reach a conclusion – Challenge u/Art.14 has to take into account the substantive content of equality which mandates fair treatment of an individual – In undertaking classification, a legislation or subordinate legislation cannot be manifestly arbitrary, courts must adjudicate whether the legislature or executive acted capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle, or did something which is excessive and disproportionate – In applying this constitutional standard, courts must identify the “real purpose” of the statute rather than the “ostensible purpose” presented by the State – Provision can be found manifestly arbitrary even if it does not make a classification – Different constitutional standards have to be applied when testing the validity of legislation as compared to subordinate legislation. [Paras 25, 34]

Constitution of India – Art. 15 – Non-Discrimination under – Interpretation:

Held: Discrimination is against citizens on any of several grounds, including “caste” prohibited, because it has several repercussions on human lives – Discrimination arises due to a feeling of superiority/inferiority, bias, contempt, or hatred against a person or a group – Discrimination also lowers the self-esteem of the person being discriminated against – It can lead to unfair denial of opportunities and constant violence against a set of people – Discrimination can also be done by continuously ridiculing or humiliating someone, who is on the weaker side of the social spectrum – Discrimination also includes stigmatizing the identity or existence of a marginalized social group – Certain anti-discrimination principles emerge u/Art.15(1) – Discrimination can be either direct or indirect, or both – Facially neutral laws may have an adverse impact on certain social groups, that are marginalized – Stereotypes can further discrimination against a marginalized social group – State is under a positive obligation to prevent discrimination against a marginalized social group – Discriminatory laws based on stereotypes and causing harm or disadvantage against a social group, directly or indirectly, are not permissible under the constitutional scheme – Courts are required to examine the claims of indirect discrimination and systemic discrimination. [Paras 35, 36, 48]

Constitution of India – Art.17 – Ban on untouchability – Mandate of Art. 17:

Held: Art.17 provides that Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden – Constitution puts an end to the socially discriminatory practice of untouchability – Untouchability and caste discrimination led to severe social and economic disabilities and cultural and educational backwardness” of the untouchables – Enforcement of any disability arising out of Untouchability is a criminal offense as per the law – It is a provision that can be implemented both against the State and non-state actors such as the citizens – Moreover, the framers of the Constitution did not refer to any religion or community in the text of the provision – Injunction against untouchability u/Art.17 is further strengthened by taking away the subject-matter from State domain and placing it as an exclusive legislative head to Parliament – Art.17 enunciates that everyone is born equal – There cannot be any stigma attached to the existence, touch or presence of any person – From time to time, to implement the mandate of Art.17, Parliament has enacted several legislations which aim to provide dignity to the affected individuals. [Paras 49-51, 54]

Constitution of India – Art.21 – Right to live with dignity under: Held: Dignity forms a part of the basic structure of the Constitution – Dignity is the core which unites the fundamental rights because the fundamental rights seek to achieve for each individual the dignity of existence – Human dignity is a constitutional value and a constitutional goal – Human dignity is intrinsic to and inseparable from human existence – Implicit in this right u/Art.21 is the right to protection against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment – There also exists a close relationship between dignity and the quality of life – Dignity u/Art.21 is an integral aspect of life, which requires sustenance of one’s being to the fullest – Right to dignity encapsulates the right of every individual to be treated as a self-governing entity having intrinsic value – Nation must prioritize human dignity ensuring that every person, regardless of their background or identity, is able to live with respect, equality, and freedom – Thus, human dignity forms the bedrock of social justice and a just, compassionate society – Even prisoners are entitled to the right to dignity – Jurisprudence which emerges on the rights of prisoners u/Art.21 is that even the incarcerated have inherent dignity – They are to be treated humanely and without cruelty – Police officers and prison officials cannot take any disproportionate measures against prisoners – Prison system must be considerate of the physical and mental health of prisoners. [Paras 55-58, 67]

Constitution of India – Art.23 – Prohibition of forced labour and human trafficking under – Scope:

Held: Scope of Art.23 is wide, as it has left the term “begar” undefined, and supplemented by the phrase ‘other similar forms’ of forced labour – Framers of the Constitution consciously left the terms undefined so that future interpretation is not restrictive – Intellectual background of Art.23 lies to facilitate the citizens in exercising their fundamental rights – Exploitative socio-economic practices can hinder the right to live a dignified life – Begar or bonded labour was entrenched in India’s social system, against which Art.23 makes a blow – Broad scope of Art.23 can be invoked to challenge practices where no wages are paid, non-payment of minimum wages takes place, social security measures for workers are not adopted, rehabilitation for bonded labour does not happen, and in similar unfair practices – State shall be held accountable even in cases where the violation of Art. 23 is done by private entities or individuals – Art.23 can also be applied to situations inside prisons, if prisoners are subjected to degrading labour or other similar oppressive practices. [Paras 68, 69, 85] Constitution of India – Constitutional interpretation – Elucidated. [Paras 6-13]

Constitution of India – Future of substantive equality and institutional discrimination – Caste Discrimination – Noneradication of the evil of caste discrimination, despite 75 years since independence:

Held: There is a need for a national vision for justice and equality, which involves all citizens – Real and quick steps needed to identify the instances of existing inequalities and injustices in the society – Compassionate approach needed – Institutional approach needed where people from marginalized communities could share their pain and anguish about their future collectively – There is a need to reflect and do away with institutional practices, which discriminate against citizens from marginalized communities or treat them without empathy – Identification of systemic discrimination in all spaces by observing patterns of exclusion needed. [Paras 228, 229]

Criminal Tribes Act – Scope and object – Repeal of Criminal Tribes Act – Discussed. [Paras 97-113, 120-126] Model Prison Manual 2016 – Scope and object of: Held: Model Prison Manual 2016 was prepared “to reflect the understanding behind constitutional provisions, Supreme Court directions on prison administration – It covers a range of aspects relating to prisons, including institutional framework, custodial management, medical care, education and training of prisoners, maintenance of prisoners, emergency situations, remission, parole, premature releases and inspection of prisons, among other things – Manual of 2016 also focuses on “prison computerization, special provisions for women prisoners, after care services, rights of prisoners sentenced to death, repatriation of prisoners from abroad, and on prison correctional staff” – New chapters on legal aid and inspection of prisons also incorporated. [Para 200] Model Prison Manual 2016 – Manual of 2016 – Certain ambiguities – Elucidation:

Held: Manual 2016 suffers from several lacunae specifically as regards its classification of “habitual offenders” and caste based discrimination – Manual mandates the classification of undertrial prisoners in three categories, wherein habitual offenders are tagged along with “Gangsters, hired Assassins, dacoits, serial killers/rapists/violent robbers, drug offenders, communal fanatics and those highly prone to escapes/ previous escapees/attack on police and other dangerous offenders/including those prone to self-harm/posing threat to public order” – Habitual offenders are tagged in the same category in relation to classification of high risk offenders and for determination of the level of security for effective surveillance – Similarly, regarding the women prisoners, it has been provided that “Habitual offenders shall be separated from casual prisoners” and that “Habitual offenders, prostitutes and brothel keepers must also be confined separately” – Phrase “habitual offender” in several prison manuals refers to people from denotified or wandering tribes – Therefore, this definition cannot be left to be interpreted and applied “in accordance with the provisions of applicable law or rules” – Secondly, Manual does not explicitly prohibit physical caste-based segregation of prisoners, except in prisons for women – Third, the Manual does not prohibit division of work on the basis of caste, except in cooking – Manual 2016 should have taken into account such practices and provided specifically for their prohibition – Fourth, Manual does not refer to the provisions of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, which prohibit manual scavenging – Said Act has a binding effect even on prisons – Fifth, caste-based privileges provided to certain prisoners are not forbidden – No special treatment shall be given to any group of persons or individuals on the basis of caste in any scenario. [Paras 201-208]

Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023 – Scope and object of – Problematic provisions:

Held: Model Act is a comprehensive document which covers all relevant aspects of prison management-security, safety, scientific and technological interventions, segregation of prisoners, special provision for women inmates, taking appropriate action against criminal activities of prisoners in the prison, grant of parole and furlough to prisoners, their education, vocational training and skill development, etc – It is for the respective State Governments to make use of the guidance provided in the Act of 2023 and enact a suitable legislation on Prisons in their jurisdictions for bringing improvement in prison management and administration of prisoners – Model Act does not contain reference to prohibition of caste-based discrimination – Provision to that effect should be inserted in the Model Act – It should ban segregation or division of work based on caste – Definition of “Habitual Offender” u/s. 2(12) that habitual Offender means a prisoner who is committed to prison repeatedly for a crime also problematic – Phrase “committed to prison repeatedly” vague and over-broad – It can be used to declare anyone as a habitual offender, even if they have not been convicted for a crime – Model Act also provides that “habitual offenders” may be housed in a high security prison – In addition thereto the Act creates a category of “recidivist”, which means “any prisoner who is convicted for a crime more than once” – “Habitual/recidivist prisoners” may be classified separately and segregated in prisons – Also, Chapter IX dealing with “Protection of Society from Criminal Activities of High-Risk Prisoners, Habitual Offenders and Hardened Criminals”, seems to be over-board. [Paras 209-212]

Social Protection – Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Denotified Tribes – Prevention of discrimination and atrocities – Jurisprudence on social protection in PostIndependence India – Stated. [Paras 127-144] Suo motu – Suo motu cognizance – Initiation of suo motu cognizance of the discrimination inside prisons on the ground of caste, gender, disability – Case to be titled as In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India. [Para 231 (vi)]