New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said Article 17 enunciates that everyone is born equal and there cannot be any stigma attached to the existence, touch or presence of any person and not providing dignity to prisoners is a relic of the colonizers and pre-colonial mechanisms.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra directed the Centre and state governments to do away with provisions in prison manuals which perpetuate caste discrimination.
The top court directed that the "caste" column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts’ prisoners’ registers inside the prisons shall be deleted.
The apex court said refusal to check caste practices or prejudices amounts to cementing of such practices. "If such practices are based on the oppression of the marginalized castes, then such practices cannot be left untouched. The Constitution mandates an end to caste discrimination and untouchability," it added.
The apex court said: "The right to live with dignity extends even to the incarcerated. Not providing dignity to prisoners is a relic of the colonizers and pre-colonial mechanisms, where oppressive systems were designed to dehumanize and degrade those under the control of the State."
"Authoritarian regimes of the pre-constitutional era saw prisons not only as places of confinement but as tools of domination. This Court, focusing on the changed legal framework brought out by the Constitution, has recognized that even prisoners are entitled to the right to dignity," it said.
The CJI, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said over 75 years since independence, we have not been able to eradicate the evil of caste discrimination.
"We need to reflect and do away with institutional practices, which discriminate against citizens from marginalized communities or treat them without empathy. We need to identify systemic discrimination in all spaces by observing patterns of exclusion. After all, the 'bounds of caste are made of steel'– 'Sometimes invisible but almost always inextricable'. But not so strong that they cannot be broken with the power of the Constitution”, said the CJI.
The CJI said Article 21 envisages the growth of individual personality.
"Caste prejudices and discrimination hinder the growth of one’s personality, and, therefore, Article 21 provides for the right to overcome caste barriers as a part of the right to life of individuals from marginalized communities," the CJI said.
The CJI said 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.
The CJI said Article 23 can also be applied to situations inside prisons, if the prisoners are subjected to degrading labour or other similar oppressive practices.
The bench said several provisions of different prison manuals impose a restriction on the labour of certain communities. "That is, these communities are allowed to undertake only one kind of labour. Menial jobs are prescribed to be performed by those communities who have been accustomed to performing such duties," observed the bench.
The CJI said, "Such provisions often lead to an unfair distribution of labour within the prison system, with persons from specific communities performing honourable tasks, while those from marginalized communities are forced into undesirable work. This type of labour assignment, based on their caste, cannot be classified as voluntary. Forcing the members of oppressed castes to selectively perform menial jobs amounts to forced labour under Article 23."
The apex court delivered the 148-page judgment on a plea by Sukanya Shantha challenging various provisions in state prison manuals on the grounds of being violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution of India.
The bench said, "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. Like Articles 15(2) and 17, it is enforceable both against the state and non-state actors."
Criticizing the caste-based discrimination rules, the CJI said such rules are indifferent to the potential of the individual prisoner to reform, and emphasized, "Such a state of affairs is entirely opposed to substantive equality, as it contributes to institutional discrimination, depriving inmates of an opportunity to reform, at par with the others over whom the pall of caste does not hang."
The bench said: "The Union government is directed to make necessary changes, as highlighted in this judgment, to address caste-based discrimination in the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 within a period of three months."
The apex court said the Ministry of Home Affairs, in consultation with various stakeholders, prepared this draft legislation and forwarded it to all states and union territories in May 2023 for adoption in their respective jurisdictions.
"The Model Act does not contain a reference to the prohibition of caste-based discrimination. This is concerning because the Act empowers the officer-in-charge of the prison to utilise the services of prisoners for administration and management of the prisons," said the bench.
The CJI said while the Model Prison Manual 2016 refers to the prohibition of caste discrimination in prisons in several provisions, the Model Act of 2023 has completely avoided any such mention, and added, "a provision to that effect should be inserted in the Model Act. It should ban segregation or division of work based on caste".
"References to habitual offenders in the prison manuals/Model Prison Manual shall be in accordance with the definition provided in the habitual offender legislation enacted by the respective State legislatures, subject to any constitutional challenge against such legislation in the future. All other references or definitions of habitual offenders in the impugned prison manuals/rules are declared unconstitutional," said the apex court.
"The DLSAs and the Board of Visitors formed under the Model Prison Manual 2016 shall jointly conduct regular inspections to identify whether caste-based discrimination or similar discriminatory practices, as highlighted in this judgment, are still taking place inside prisons”, said the apex court.
During the hearing on the case, S. Muralidhar, senior advocate, appearing for the petitioner highlighted the issue of caste-based discrimination in the prisons. A chart was brought on record citing provisions from different State prison manuals/rules to highlight various forms of discrimination in the prisons.
It was argued that caste-based discrimination continues to persist in the prisons in the country with respect to: (i) The division of manual labour; (ii) Segregation of barracks; and (iii) Provisions that discriminate against prisoners belonging to Denotified tribes and "habitual offenders".
The apex court ruled that provisions under challenge in the various state manuals were unconstitutional. "The impugned provisions are declared unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. All States and Union Territories are directed to revise their Prison Manuals/Rules in accordance with this judgment within a period of three months," said the top court.
"This Court takes suo motu cognizance of the discrimination inside prisons on any ground such as caste, gender, disability, and shall list the case from now onwards as In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India. The Registry is directed to list the case after a period of three months before an appropriate Bench”, it added.
It was contended before the top court that caste-based discrimination continues to persist in the prisons in relation with the division of manual labour, segregation of barracks, and also provisions that discriminate against prisoners belonging to de-notified tribes and "habitual offenders".
The apex court ruled against caste-based discrimination like division of manual labour, segregation of barracks and bias against prisoners of de-notified tribes and habitual offenders by holding as "unconstitutional" the jail manual rules of 10 states for fostering such biases.
