On ‘casteist’ provisions in prison manuals

Sub: Polity

Sec: Constitution

Context:

On October 3, the Supreme Court of India declared the caste-based division of labour in prisons to be unconstitutional.
A three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice Y. Chandrachud, struck down various provisions in State prison manuals that reinforced caste inequalities, deeming them violative of prisoners’ fundamental rights.

Background of the case:

The ruling stemmed from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by journalist Sukanya Shantha, which highlighted provisions in prison manuals from several states including Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Odisha, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala.
These provisions legitimized caste-based inequalities. For instance:
- In Palayamkottai Central Jail (Tamil Nadu), prisoners from different castes like Thevars, Nadars, and Pallars were segregated into separate sections, showcasing blatant caste-based segregation.
- The Rajasthan Prison Rules, 1951, assigned latrine duties to the Mehtar caste (a Scheduled Caste) while higher-caste prisoners were given roles in kitchens, perpetuating caste divisions.

Colonial Legacy in Prison Manuals

The Criminal Tribes Act, 1871, allowed the British to label certain marginalized communities as criminal tribes, perpetuating the notion of born criminals.
After the act was repealed, these communities were categorized as denotified tribes.
However, prison manuals continued to label them as habitual offenders without any conviction.

Examples cited by Supreme court:

The West Bengal Jail Code required that convict overseers be chosen based on their caste, specifically excluding those from wandering tribes.
Manuals in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala defined habitual criminals broadly, stigmatizing entire communities.

Violation of Fundamental Rights:

The manuals were found to be in violation of Article 14 (right to equality). The segregation based on caste would reinforce social divisions, contrary to the principles of equality.
The assignment of labour based on caste, where marginalized communities were given menial tasks while higher castes were allowed to engage in cooking, constitutes direct discrimination under Article 15(1).
The practice of assigning roles based on “customary” notions leads to indirect discrimination, violating the dignity and reformation rights of marginalized prisoners.
The Court noted that labelling tasks based on caste not only perpetuates untouchability (prohibited under Article 17) but also restricts the reformation and dignity of prisoners, thereby violating their right to life.

Directions issued:

The Supreme Court directed all States and Union Territories to amend their prison manuals and rules within three months to eliminate discriminatory practices.
Necessary reforms were mandated for both the Model Prison Manual, 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023.
To ensure compliance, district legal services authorities and boards of visitors were tasked with conducting regular inspections of prison practices.