Context:

On October 3, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgment, striking down provisions in several state prison manuals that reinforced caste-based discrimination. The ruling comes as a pivotal moment in the fight for equality, particularly for marginalized communities that have historically been subjected to caste-based labor divisions. These provisions perpetuate colonial-era stereotypes, assigning menial work based on caste, thus violating fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.

The judgment, by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, highlighted the discriminatory nature of prison manuals from states such as Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu. These rules not only classified prisoners based on caste but also assigned them prison work that reinforced caste hierarchies.

Background:

The Supreme Court's decision followed a plea filed by journalist Sukanya Shantha, who flagged discriminatory rules in prison manuals across multiple states. These rules assigned prison labor based on caste, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities, including Scheduled Castes and denotified tribes, who were historically stigmatized as "criminal tribes" under British colonial rule.

·        For instance, the Madhya Pradesh Jail Manual (1987) mandated that prisoners from the ‘Mehtar’ caste, a Scheduled Caste community, were to clean latrines.

·        Similarly, the West Bengal Jail Code Rules (1967) allowed prisoners of "suitable caste" to cook and deliver food, clearly dividing tasks along caste lines.

Supreme Court's Mandates:

In judgment, the court declared all such discriminatory provisions unconstitutional. The ruling directed state governments and union territories to revise their prison manuals within three months.  The Centre was also instructed to amend the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the draft Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023 to eliminate caste-based labor divisions.

Colonial Legacy and the Criminal Tribes Act:

The discriminatory provisions in the prison manuals stem from the colonial-era Criminal Tribes Act of 1871, which allowed the British to label certain communities as "criminal tribes." These communities were forcibly settled, subjected to constant surveillance, and branded as habitual criminals. Despite the repeal of the Act in 1952, the stigma associated with these communities continues, particularly for denotified tribes (DNTs).

The Supreme Court pointed out that prison manuals in states like Madhya Pradesh still allow authorities to classify members of denotified tribes as "habitual criminals" based on arbitrary criteria, even without prior convictions. The court underscored how such provisions perpetuate colonial stereotypes and violate the fundamental rights of these communities.

Denotified Tribes and Prison Labor:

·        Denotified tribes, historically labeled as "criminal tribes," continue to face discrimination not only in society but also in prisons. The Madhya Pradesh manual allowed members of denotified tribes to be treated as habitual criminals, effectively linking their identity with criminality. Similar provisions existed in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala, where prisoners could be labeled habitual criminals based on their caste and past behavior, even without a criminal record. The judgment highlights the necessity of dismantling these regressive practices.

Constitutional Violations

The Supreme Court’s judgment identified multiple violations of constitutional rights, particularly in regard to Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23. The following section breaks down these violations and the broader implications of the ruling.

1. Right to Equality (Article 14)

The court ruled that caste-based classification of prisoners is unconstitutional. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, and the Supreme Court emphasized that caste can only be used as a ground for classification when it provides benefits to victims of caste-based discrimination. Assigning prison work based on caste deprives prisoners of the opportunity to reform and reinforces social divisions.

Key Landmark Judgments:

• • • • Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992): The court discussed affirmative action policies and the need for equality.
      • K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017): Extended the scope of Article 14 to ensure equality in emerging contexts.

2. Right Against Discrimination (Article 15)

Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the basis of caste, religion, race, or gender. The court found that the prison manuals discriminated against marginalized communities by assigning cleaning and sweeping tasks to lower-caste prisoners. This perpetuates stereotypes that certain castes are only fit for menial labor, violating Article 15.

3. Abolition of Untouchability (Article 17)

The court observed that certain prison rules explicitly practiced untouchability, which has been abolished under Article 17. For instance, in Uttar Pradesh, convicts from lower castes were assigned menial work such as latrine cleaning. This practice reinforces caste-based labor divisions and continues untouchability in a modern context.

Legislative Reference:

• • • Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: Enacted to ensure the abolition of untouchability in all forms.

4. Right to Life with Dignity (Article 21)

Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to live with dignity. The court held that assigning degrading tasks to marginalized prisoners deprives them of dignity and restricts their ability to reform. The Supreme Court has previously expanded the scope of Article 21 to include dignity, privacy, and the right to live without discrimination.

Key Landmark Judgments:

• • • Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978): Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity.
    • Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017): Expanded the interpretation of the right to life.

5. Prohibition of Forced Labor (Article 23)

The court ruled that forcing marginalized prisoners to perform menial labor while allowing upper-caste prisoners to engage in more “honourable” tasks amounts to forced labor, prohibited under Article 23. Forced labor does not always involve physical compulsion; it can also result from the exploitation of social and economic vulnerabilities.

Comparative Analysis: Prison Reforms in Other Countries:

To place India’s prison reforms in a global context, it’s worth examining how other countries handle prison labor and discrimination:

• • United States: Racial and ethnic discrimination in prisons has been a significant issue, especially regarding prison labor. The 13th Amendment allows for involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime, leading to widespread criticism about its disproportionate impact on African Americans.
  • United Nations: The UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules) emphasize non-discrimination and equitable treatment of prisoners, with a focus on rehabilitation and dignity.

Reformative Justice and Prison Reforms in India:

The Supreme Court’s ruling also reflects the broader philosophy of reformative justice, which seeks to rehabilitate rather than merely punish prisoners. The judgment paves the way for structural changes in India’s prison system:

• Model Prison Manual 2016: Focuses on rehabilitation, skill-building, and vocational training for prisoners.
• Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023: Expected to address the need for prison reforms and the equitable distribution of prison work, ensuring that no community is subjected to caste-based discrimination.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s judgment is a significant step toward dismantling the remnants of caste-based discrimination in India’s prison system. By upholding the constitutional values of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination, the court has reaffirmed its commitment to social justice. This ruling serves as a powerful reminder that systemic reform is essential to eliminate historical inequalities, not only in prisons but across all state institutions.