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

[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala

and Manoj Misra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration

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

country.

Headnotes

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 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]