Sukanya Shantha v/s Union Of India & Ors.
In The Supreme Court Of India – Civil Original Jurisdiction
Year: 2023
Case Citation: Writ Petition (C) No. 1404 of 2023
Introduction:
A journalist at The Wire, Sukanya Shantha, wrote an article “From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System,” which was circulated on 10 December 2020. And this article tinted discrimination on the grounds of caste in the prisons and the offending provisions in the state prison manuals. In the article, Ms. Sukanya Shantha had interviewed many under trail and former prisoners across India and she found out that in all the states there exist caste discrimination among prisoners in prisons. The article had these lines
“The arrangement was clear — those at the bottom of the caste pyramid did the cleaning work; those high above handled the kitchen or the legal documentation department. And the rich and influential did nothing; they only threw their weight around. These arrangements had nothing to do with the crime that one was arrested for or his conduct in prison.”[1]
Facts:
This issue was taken to the Supreme Court by the journalist that she files a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to challenge this caste-based segregation and discrimination in the prisons. The petition dealt mainly with caste discrimination in manual labour, segregation of prison barracks and discrimination provisions in the State Prison Manuals/Rules against prisoners from De- Notified Tribes who were labelled as “habitual offenders.”
The petition questioned the justification given by the High Court and urged the Supreme Court to strike down the discriminatory provisions in various State Prison Manuals. It argued that such practices go against the core values of the Constitution the right to equality, dignity, and freedom from discrimination and forced labour as guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23.
Legal issues:
- Whether the acts of prison authorities like segregating inmates based on caste identity is violative fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Indian Constitution?
- Whether using of ambiguous criteria for classification for prisoners like “habit, custom, superior mode of living etc. is a valid differentia or merely acts as a stand-in for caste-based discrimination against marginalized communities”? [2]
Court’s Decision:
The court decided and gave the following directions in the light of the discussions made and the requests put forth by the petitioner :
- “The court declared the impugned provisions in the State Prison Manuals as unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. It directed all States and Union Territories to revise their Prison Manuals/Rules in accordance with this judgment within a period of three months.”
- “The court ordered to delete the “caste” column and any references to caste in the undertrial and/or convicts’ prisoners’ registers”
- “The court directed the police to ensure that the members of De- Notified tribes are not arbitrarily arrested.”
- “The court also declared that this court shall now onwards take Suo motu cognizance of the discrimination inside prisons on any ground such as caste, gender, disability, and shall list the case as , In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India.” [3]
Legal Reasoning:
The Constitution mandates a more just and inclusive society, where every citizen can thrive. The constitution is not static instead it gets evolved over time. The silences in the constitution must be filled up with court’s interpretations. “Our interpretation must adhere to the postulate that “civil and political rights and socio-economic rights.”[4] The Constitution of India is an emancipatory document. “It provides equal citizenship to all citizens of India. “Constitution, by its very existence, was a social revolutionary statement.””[5]
Justice Krishna Iyer in his concurring opinion in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas called the Constitution “a great social document, almost revolutionary in its aim of transforming a medieval, hierarchical society into a modern, egalitarian democracy”.[6] Article 14 guarantees that the “State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. [7]In the case “State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar”, the court held that:
“In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others, and (2) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act.”[8]
The court must investigate the real purpose rather than the ostensible purpose and that it can invalidate a statute for arbitrariness even if it does not have a classification at all. The same applies to a subordinate legislation like prison manuals.
According to Article 15 discrimination on the basis caste, creed, sex, place of birth etc is strictly prohibited.[9] “The discrimination can be either direct, indirect or both. Laws that are prima facie neutral laws may have an adverse impact on certain social groups, that are marginalized. The State is under a positive obligation to prevent discrimination against a marginalized social group. Discrimination based on stereotypes can cause harm and disadvantage against a social group.”[10]
Article 15 allows only protective discrimination which must be in advantage of the marginalised communities.
Article 17 of the Constitution provides that: “Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden.”[11] There shouldn’t exist any form discrimination in the name of pollution like any disgrace attached to the presence of any person or their touch. Through this the constitution ensures equality of status of every citizen. The word untouchability can be interpreted broadly. The practises such as segregation of barracks and assignment of menial tasks based on caste, amount to modern indices of untouchability.
Article 21 provides that “[n]o person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. [12]
“The jurisprudence which emerges on the rights of prisoners under Article 21 is that even the incarcerated have inherent dignity. They are to be treated in a humanely and without cruelty. Police officers and prison officials cannot take any disproportionate measures against prisoners. The prison system must be considerate of the physical and mental health of prisoners. For instance, if a prisoner suffers from a disability, adequate steps must be taken to ensure their dignity and to offer support.”[13]
“Article 23(1) provides an enforceable fundamental right against social and economic exploitation. It aims to prohibit human trafficking, “begar,” and “other similar forms of forced labour.” [14]Article 23 is applied to situations inside prisons, if the prisoners are subjected to degrading labour or other similar oppressive practices.
Personal Analysis:
The supreme court’s judgement in these stands as a strong assertion of the constitution’s moral and legal obligation to pull into pieces the entrenched caste orders and hierarchies and it once again established the equality for all. Journalism had again played a crucial role in bringing out justice.
Through the explanation of all the articles that are being violated by the State Prison manual it has clearly reasoned out in what way the prisoners are ill-treated. The judgement not only beheld the present scenarios of prisoners’ caste discrimination but also it started from scratch i.e., from colonial history where the Britishers followed the same hierarchical caste system while assigning works to the prisoners. In doing so, it recognized that the oppression of marginalized communities especially Dalits and De- Notified tribes did not stop at the prison gates but was replicated within the very institutions that are supposed to correct behaviour and uphold justice.
The judgement had reiterated that constitution is not just a legal text but a social contract meant to reshape the moral character of public institutions. It has once again upheld article 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23 for the betterment of the prisoners. It acknowledged that caste segregation in barracks and the forced assignment of menial labour is not just a minor administrative fault instead it is something which deeply rooted in this structural society.
Many States Prison manual failed to address the structural discrimination that persists. Since prison administration is a state subject the court has rightly said that even states’ legislation can in no way violate the fundamental rights of the constitution and moreover offenders are offenders irrespective of their caste and that there shall be no discrimination in the prison.
Conclusion:
To conclude, this case like “Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra” [15]has once again addressed the misery of the prisoners and that not only this but there are cases where the prisoners were tortured and beaten to death. A recent case where a watchman in the temple was taken into custody for theft and was beaten to death and the same is also happening to the Scheduled tribes and the same was addressed in the case “Rajakannu v. state of Tamil Nadu” and it is mandatory for the courts to address those problems and come up with a better solution. End Notes:
- Sukanya Shantha, From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System, The Wire (Dec. 10, 2020), https://thewire.in/caste/india-prisons-caste-labour-segregation.
- Ending Caste-Based Segregation in Prisons, Drishti Judiciary (Aug. 2024), https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/editorial/ending-caste-based-segregation-in-prisons.
- Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors, supra note 1, at 2
- Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
- Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation xii (Oxford Univ. Press 1966).
- State Of Kerala & Anr vs N. M. Thomas & Ors on 19 September, 1975
- India Const. art. 14.
- State of W. B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75, 1952 SCR 284.
- India Const. art. 15.
- Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors, supra note 1, at 2
- India Const. art. 17.
- India Const. art. 21.
- Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors, supra note 1, at 2
- India Const. art. 23.
- Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96 : AIR 1983 SC 378 : (1983) 2 SCR 337.
