COURT - IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CITATION - 2024
INSC 753
PARTIES -
Sukanya Shantha …Petitioner
Versus
Union of
India & Ors. …Respondents[1]
Justices:
Chief
Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Jamshed B. Pardiwala, Justice
Manoj Mishra
Question(s):
Whether
provisions in the Prison Manuals of various States which distinguish between
inmates based on caste are unconstitutional.
Factual
Background:
Sukanya
Shantha (“Petitioner”), a journalist, wrote an article titled “From
Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System” which
was published on 10 December 2020. The article highlighted caste-based
discrimination in prisons. The Petitioner subsequently approached the Supreme
Court under Article 32[2]
of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of various provisions in
State Prison Manuals.
Few
of the Prison Manual provisions challenged stated that:
1.
A
convict sentenced to simple imprisonment shall not be called upon to perform
duties of a degrading or menial character unless he belongs to a class or
community accustomed to performing such duties;
2.
A
convict overseer may be appointed as a night guard provided he does not belong
to any class that may have a strong natural tendency to escape, such as men of
wandering tribes;
3.
Food
shall be cooked and carried to the cells by prisoner-cooks of suitable caste;
4.
Sweepers
should be chosen from the Mether or Hari caste, also from the Chandal or other
castes, if by the custom of the district they perform similar work when free;
and
5.
Any
prisoner in a jail who is of so high a caste that he cannot eat food cooked by
the existing cooks shall be appointed a cook and be made to cook for the full
complement of men.
The
Petitioner argued that caste-based discrimination continues to persist in
prisons The States of Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Maharashtra,
Orissa, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu appeared before the Supreme
Court.
Decision of the Supreme Court:
A
Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the challenged Prison Manual
provisions were unconstitutional and violated the following articles of the
Constitution: Article 14 (equality)[3],
Article 15 (prohibition of caste discrimination)[4],
Article 17 (abolition of untouchability)[5],
Article 21 (life and liberty)[6],
and Article 23 (forced labour)[7].
The Court ordered the States to revise their prison manuals within three
months. It also asked for a status report from the states.
Reasons for the Decision:
The
Prison Manuals are unconstitutional because they classify prisoners on the
basis of caste.
The
Supreme Court held that the Government can differentiate between citizens based
on caste only to create protective policies for marginalised castes and not to
further discrimination[8].
The Court held that the caste classification done in the Prison Manuals had no
rational nexus with the object of the classification, which was the orderly
running of prisons and reforming inmates[9].
The Supreme Court held that the Prison Manual rules reinforce the occupational
immobility of prisoners of certain castes, which contributes to institutional
discrimination, depriving inmates of an equal opportunity to reform[10].
The Court held that provisions which differentiate between citizens based on
“habit”, “custom”, “superior mode of living”, and “natural tendency to escape”
are unconstitutionally vague and indeterminate[11].
The
Supreme Court held that by assigning cleaning and sweeping work to marginalised
castes, while allowing the “high” castes to do cooking, the Manuals directly
discriminate based on caste and thus violate Article 15(1)[12]
of the Constitution[13].
The Supreme Court also held that the Manuals indirectly discriminate
against marginalised castes by using broad phrases such as “menial” jobs to be
performed by castes “accustomed to perform such duties.” While such phrases may
appear to be neutral, they refer to marginalised communities. These provisions
disproportionately harm marginalised castes and perpetuate caste-based labour
divisions[14].
The Supreme Court held that only such classification that proceeds from an
objective inquiry of factors such as work aptitude, accommodation needs, and
special medical and psychological needs of the prisoner would pass a test of
reasonable classification[15].
Discrimination
against de-notified tribes is unconstitutional
The
Supreme Court held that the Prison Manual rule which prevented members of
de-notified tribes from being overseers reinforces a stereotype which excludes
them from meaningful participation in social life[16].
These stereotypes not only criminalise entire communities but also reinforce
caste-based prejudices. They resemble a form of untouchability, as they assign
certain negative traits to specific groups based on identity, perpetuating
their marginalisation and exclusion[17].
The Court ruled that discrimination against de-notified tribes is prohibited
under Article 15(1)[18]
as it is a form of caste discrimination[19].
Notion
of Untouchability
The
Supreme Court held that some of the provisions of the Prison Manuals which
assigned “degrading or menial” work to certain castes were unconstitutional.
The Court ruled that the notion that an occupation is considered “degrading or
menial” is an aspect of the caste system and untouchability[20].
The provision that food shall be cooked by a “suitable caste” reflects notions
of untouchability.[21]
The Court held that the division of work based on caste is a practice of
untouchability prohibited under the Constitution under Article 17[22]
[23].
Caste-based
division of labour is forced labour under Article 23
The
Supreme Court ruled that forcing marginalised caste inmates to perform tasks
like cleaning latrines or sweeping, without providing them any choice in the
matter amounts to “forced labour” under Article 23 because it strips
individuals of their liberty to engage in meaningful work, and denies them the
opportunity to rise above the constraints imposed by their social identity[24].
Need
of change in the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023
The
Supreme Court ruled that a provision prohibiting all forms of caste
discrimination in prisons should be inserted in the Model Prisons and
Correctional Services Act, 2023 (“Model Act 2023)[25].
The
Supreme Court also ruled that the definition of “Habitual Offender” under
Section 2(12)[26]
of the Model Act 2023 is vague and over-broad[27].
The Court also held that the classification of “habitual offender” in the
Prison Manuals has been used to target members of de-notified tribes and this
can not be allowed[28].
However, since habitual offender laws were not in challenge in this case, the
Court urged the State governments to reconsider the usage of various habitual
offender laws. In the meantime, the Court held that the definition of “habitual
offender” in the prison manuals/rules shall be interpreted per the definition
provided in the habitual offender legislation enacted by the respective State
legislature, subject to any constitutional challenge against such legislation
in the future. The Court held that if there is no habitual offender legislation
in the State, the references to habitual offenders directly or indirectly in
Prison Manuals, as discussed in this judgment, would be struck down as
unconstitutional[29].
Directions
to the Union Government and States
The
Supreme Court held that the “caste” column and any references to caste in
undertrial and/or convicts’ prisoners’ registers inside the prisons shall be
deleted. The Court directed the All States and Union Territories to revise
their Prison Manuals/Rules per this judgment within three months. The Court
also directed the Union government to make necessary changes, as highlighted in
this judgment, to address caste-based discrimination in the Model Prison Manual
2016[30]
and the Model Act 2023[31]
within three months.
The
Supreme Court took cognizance of the discrimination inside prisons on any
grounds such as caste, gender, or disability and listed the case after three
months to check compliance of this judgment. The Court also directed the
District Legal Services Authority of the states and the Board of Visitors
formed under the Model Prison Manual 2016[32]
to jointly conduct regular inspections of prisons to identify whether
caste-based discrimination or similar discriminatory practices as highlighted
in this judgment, were still taking place and submit a report to the Supreme
Court.
[1] Sukanya Shantha v. Union of
India & Ors., (2024) INSC 753,(India).
[2] India Const. art. 32 (Remedy for
enforcement of fundamental rights).
[3] India Const. art. 14 (Equal
protection of laws).
[4] India Const. art. 15(1)
(Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or
place of birth).
[5] India Const. art. 17 (Abolition of
untouchability).
[6] India Const. art. 21 (Protection
of life and personal liberty).
[7] India Const. art. 23 (Prohibition
of traffic in human beings and forced labour).
[8] Sukanya Shantha, (2024) INSC 753,
¶ 164.
[9] Sukanya Shantha, (2024)
INSC 753, ¶ 165.
[10] Sukanya Shantha, (2024)
INSC 753, ¶¶ 185–186.
[11] Sukanya Shantha, (2024)
INSC 753, ¶ 168.
[12] India Const. art. 15(1)
(Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or
place of birth).
[13] Sukanya Shantha, (2024)
INSC 753, ¶ 171.
[14] Sukanya Shantha, (2024)
INSC 753, ¶ 172.
[15] Sukanya Shantha, (2024)
INSC 753, ¶ 169.
[16] Sukanya Shantha, (2024)
INSC 753, ¶¶ 174–175.
[17] Sukanya Shantha, (2024)
INSC 753, ¶ 183.
[18] India Const. art. 15(1)
(Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or
place of birth).
[19] Sukanya Shantha, (2024)
INSC 753, ¶ 175.
[20] Sukanya Shantha, (2024)
INSC 753, ¶ 179.
[21] Landmark Judgement 2024,
English 894, www.linkinglaws.com/assets/pdf/contents/landmark-judgment-2024-english-894.pdf (last visited Nov. 2, 2025).
[22] India Const. art. 17 (Abolition of
untouchability).
[23] Sukanya Shantha, (2024)
INSC 753, ¶ 180.
[24] Sukanya Shantha, (2024)
INSC 753, ¶¶ 193–195.
[25] Sukanya Shantha, (2024)
INSC 753, ¶ 210.
[26] Model Prisons and Correctional
Services Act, § 2(12) (2023) (India).
[27] Sukanya Shantha, (2024)
INSC 753, ¶ 211.
[28] Sukanya Shantha, (2024)
INSC 753, ¶ 218.
[29] Sukanya Shantha, (2024)
INSC 753, ¶ 219.
[30] Model Prison Manual,
Ministry of Home Affairs (2016) (India).
[31] Model Prisons and Correctional
Services Act, § 2(12) (2023) (India).
[32] Model Prison Manual,
Ministry of Home Affairs (2016) (India).
