Quick answer
No. In Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court held that prison rules assigning work, cooking duties or barracks to prisoners on the basis of caste are unconstitutional because they violate Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23. It directed all States and Union Territories to revise their prison manuals within three months and ordered the caste column to be deleted from prisoner registers. A prisoner loses some liberty, but not the right to equality and dignity.
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 1404 of 2023, 2024 INSC 753
Court: Supreme Court of India (Dr D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, J.B. Pardiwala J. and Manoj Misra J.; judgment by Chandrachud CJI). Decided: 3 October 2024.
Held: provisions of State prison manuals that divided labour by caste, segregated barracks by caste, and targeted denotified tribes and "habitual offenders" were declared unconstitutional.
Background
Sukanya Shantha, a journalist, wrote an article, published on 10 December 2020, on caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons, and then filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking directions for repeal of the offending provisions of State prison manuals. The Court found that several State prison manuals gave cleaning and sweeping work to particular castes, required food to be cooked by a "suitable caste", and reinforced stereotypes against denotified tribes (communities once listed under colonial "criminal tribes" laws) as habitually criminal.
Why the rules failed: the five Articles
- Article 14 (equality before law): classifying prisoners by caste, directly or through proxies such as "habit" or "superior mode of living", has no rational link with prison discipline or reform.
- Article 15 (no discrimination on grounds including caste): caste cannot be the basis of classification; discrimination against denotified tribes is also caste discrimination.
- Article 17 (abolition of untouchability): dividing work by caste and requiring cooks of a "suitable caste" reflect untouchability, which is forbidden "in any form".
- Article 21 (life and personal liberty): the right to life includes dignity and the right of persons from marginalised communities to overcome caste barriers; caste-based rules also deny prisoners an equal chance to reform.
- Article 23 (prohibition of forced labour): forcing marginalised castes to do menial work such as cleaning latrines, without choice and only because of caste, is forced labour.
The Court also rejected the defence that caste segregation was needed for discipline: discipline cannot be secured at the cost of fundamental rights, and prison authorities must deal with threats by means that are not discriminatory.
Key directions
- States and Union Territories to revise prison manuals and rules within three months.
- The Union to remove caste-based discrimination from the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 within three months.
- References to "habitual offenders" in prison manuals to follow the definition in the State's habitual offender legislation; all other references to or definitions of "habitual offenders" in the impugned manuals were declared unconstitutional.
- The "caste" column and references to caste in prisoners' registers to be deleted.
- Police to follow the Arnesh Kumar and Amanatullah Khan guidelines so that members of denotified tribes are not arbitrarily arrested.
- District Legal Services Authorities and Boards of Visitors to inspect prisons jointly and regularly for caste-based discrimination.
- The Court took suo motu (on its own) cognizance of discrimination inside prisons on any ground, such as caste, gender or disability, as "In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India".
A prison officer tells Armaan that because of his caste he must clean the toilets, tells Farhan that because of his caste he will cook, and tells Aadil that because of his caste he must stay in a separate barrack. After Sukanya Shantha, each of these orders is unconstitutional. Convicts sentenced to rigorous imprisonment can still lawfully be required to work, but no prisoner can be given degrading labour, and caste cannot decide who does what or where a prisoner lives.
For a fuller case study, see Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024): caste in prisons. For the wider rights of convicts, see prisoners' human rights and dignity after conviction.
Exam point
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024): caste-based allocation of work and barracks in prisons violates Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23; the caste column in prison registers must go.
