Case Summary: Sukanya Shantha v Union of India (2024) | Caste-Based Discrimination in Indian Prisons

The case revolves around a petition filed by Sukanya Shantha, a journalist, addressing caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons. This writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks the repeal of unconstitutional provisions in state prison manuals that sanction discriminatory practices. The petitioner highlighted that these practices violate fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Indian Constitution.

The article authored by Sukanya Shantha, “From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System”, published in December 2020, served as the backdrop for the petition, emphasizing the caste-based segregation and labour discrimination in Indian prisons.

1. Division of manual labour based on caste.
2. Segregation of barracks.
3. Discriminatory provisions targeting Denotified Tribes and "habitual offenders."

The Model Prison Manual, 2016, despite prohibiting some forms of caste discrimination, did not adequately address these issues. The petitioner also pointed out the misuse of the term "habitual offenders" to target vulnerable communities, calling for clarification in the prison manuals of various states.

Apart from the counsel for the petitioner and the intervenor, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) of India represented the Union of India. Their respective counsel also represented the states of Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Orissa, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar and Advocate Disha Wadekar represented the petitioner, emphasizing that the prison manuals violate Articles 14 (equality before the law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 17 (abolition of untouchability), 21 (right to life and liberty), and 23 (prohibition of forced labour) of the Constitution. They presented evidence of systemic discrimination against marginalized caste groups inside Indian prisons and sought directions to repeal such provisions.

For the Union of India: Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati argued that the Ministry of Home Affairs had already circulated a Model Prison Manual (2016), which prohibits caste and religion-based discrimination. She submitted that prison management falls under the States’ jurisdiction, as per the Constitution, but reaffirmed that the Union had issued necessary advisories to States to ensure non-discriminatory practices.

For State of West Bengal: Counsel Ashtha Sharma argued that discriminatory provisions in the West Bengal Jail Code Rules (1967) were not in practice and that a proposal for their deletion was already under review.

Issues

1. Whether caste-based discrimination in prisons, as sanctioned by various state prison manuals, is violative of constitutional rights.
2. Whether the provisions relating to "habitual offenders" target Denotified Tribes and violate their rights under the Constitution.

3. Whether the Model Prison Manual, 2016 adequately addresses caste discrimination.

Judgment

The court recognized that caste-based discrimination inside prisons reflects broader systemic inequalities, which are contrary to the values enshrined in the Constitution. Drawing from precedents, such as State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh and Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, the court reiterated that while classification is permissible under Article 14, it must be reasonable, and practices must not be manifestly arbitrary.

The court also noted that legal provisions cannot be isolated from the social, historical, and cultural contexts in which they are implemented. It highlighted that the continued presence of caste-based practices within the criminal justice system reinforces historical inequalities, which the Constitution actively seeks to eradicate.

The court issued the following directions:

1. Unconstitutionality of Discriminatory Provisions:
   The provisions in various state prison manuals permitting caste-based discrimination were declared unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution.

2. Revision of State Prison Manuals: All States and Union Territories were directed to revise their prison manuals in line with this judgment within three months.

3. Amendments to the Model Prison Manual: The Union government was directed to update the Model Prison Manual, 2016, and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, to address caste-based discrimination comprehensively.

4. Clarification on "Habitual Offenders": References to "habitual offenders" in prison manuals must conform to definitions under relevant state legislation. In the absence of such legislation, necessary amendments were ordered.

5. Removal of Caste-Based References: References to caste in prison registers and records were to be eliminated.

6. Monitoring of Discriminatory Practices: The DLSAs and Boards of Visitors were tasked with conducting regular inspections to identify any continuation of caste-based discrimination inside prisons.

7. Suo Motu Petition: The court took suo motu cognizance of the broader issue of discrimination inside prisons, directing a review in three months.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

Conclusion

 By addressing unconstitutional practices such as segregation and labour division based on caste, the Supreme Court reinforced the constitutional principles of equality and dignity. The court's ruling directed states to revise prison manuals, remove caste-based references, and ensure that discriminatory practices are eliminated.

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams

Law Aspirants: Ultimate Test Prep Destination