Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors.

 

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 493 : 2024 INSC 753

Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors.

(Writ Petition (C) No. 1404 of 2023)

03 October 2024

Issue for Consideration

Matter pertains to caste-based discrimination in the prisons in the

country.

 

Constitution of India – Arts.14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 – Prisons

in India – Caste-based discrimination – Writ petition seeking

directions for repeal of the offending provisions in State

Prison Manuals – Petitioner’s case that various State Prison

Manuals sanction unconstitutional practices, violative of

Arts 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23; that caste-based discrimination

continues to persist in the prisons with respect to division

of manual labour; segregation of barracks; and provisions

discriminate against prisoners belonging to denotified tribes

and “habitual offenders”; that the Model Prison Manual, 2016

does not address the impugned provisions related to caste

discrimination; and sought direction to the Home Departments

of the States to clarify the definition of “Habitual Offenders”

in their respective Prison Manuals so as to prevent its misuse

against the denotified tribes in prisons:

Held: Impugned provisions are unconstitutional for being violative

of Arts.14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 – In accordance with the instant

judgment, all States and Union Territories to revise their Prison

Manuals/Rules within the stipulated period; that Union government

to make necessary changes, to address caste-based discrimination

in the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and

Correctional Services Act 2023; that references to “habitual

offenders” in the prison manuals/Model Prison Manual to be in

accordance with the definition provided in the habitual offender

legislation enacted by the respective State legislatures; that all other

references or definitions of “habitual offenders” in the impugned

prison manuals/rules unconstitutional; that the “caste” column and

any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts’ prisoners’

registers inside the prisons to be deleted; that the Police to follow

the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar’s case and Amanatullah

Khan’s case to ensure that members of Denotified Tribes are

not subjected to arbitrary arrest; that this Court to take suo motu

cognizance of the discrimination inside prisons; that all States and

the Union government to file a compliance report on this judgment,

on the first hearing of the suo motu petition; and that NALSA to file

joint status report after compiling reports of inspection conducted

by DLSAs and Board of Visitors and of SLSAs before this Court.

[Paras 161-231]

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 caste prejudices – 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