Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India

Author: Yuwaraj Yadav, Chaudhary Charan Singh University

Court- Supreme Court

Year- 2024

Citation- 2024 INSC 753.

The verdict of the apex court in “Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India” It is a watershed moment in the fight against discrimination. This case addresses the entrenched caste-based discrimination in prisons and reaffirms the constitutional guarantee of equality and dignity even to prisoners. In prisons, the prisoners are treated according to their caste hierarchy. Inmates from marginalized castes and de-notified tribes are subjected to menial labor, like scavenging and cleaning, whereas prisoners from higher castes are tasked with more dignified work, like cooking. Further, Jail manuals regard the inmate from a de-notified tribal caste, a habitual offender. This practice continues to persist despite constitutional provisions guaranteeing the abolition of untouchability under Article 17.

A writ petition was filed challenging these practices as violations of Article 14, Article 15, Article 17, Article 21, and Article 23 of the Constitution.

On 10 September 2020, Sukanya Shantha, a journalist, wrote an article, “From Segregation to Labor, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System.” She highlighted the caste-based discrimination in the prisons of the country. The article focuses on the treatment of marginalized communities, including de-notified tribes and habitual offenders. The article also highlights the various state prison manual which allows the caste-based labor division and barrack segregation, such as “Rule 1117 of West Bengal Jail Code,” which provides that, “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.”

On 12 December 2023, Sukanya filed a writ petition challenging the caste-based discrimination in prisons and sought directions for repealing the provisions in the State Prison Manual that perpetuate this prevailing segregation. The matter was sub-judice before a bench consisting of the then Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.

The main questions that were addressed in this case were

• Is the segregation of inmates based on caste justified as a measure to maintain discipline?

• Whether using the indeterminate criteria like “natural tendency to escape,” “custom,” and “superior mode of living” as a valid differentia constitutional?

• Whether the provisions relating to ‘habitual offender’ violate the rights of De-notified Tribes? 

The Court categorically ruled that prison work assignments and caste-based segregation were unconstitutional under many constitutional provisions. It denounced these actions as being incompatible with the fundamental rights that all people, including those who are detained, are entitled to. Within three months, the Union and state governments were ordered by the ruling to update prison manuals. In addition, the court mandated that the caste column be eliminated from the convict and undertrial registries and that clauses designating inmates as “habitual offenders,” which disproportionately targeted marginalised groups, like as de-notified tribes, be removed. The court further noted that assigning menial work based on caste was forbidden by “Article 23” since it was considered a kind of forced labour. Additionally, the ruling reaffirmed that these assignments violated “Article 17” by maintaining untouchability. This judgment upholds the fundamental rights of the prisoners. It is prohibited to treat them in a way that diminishes their dignity or upholds societal injustices.

The Court emphasised how colonial-era practices, including calling members of de-notified tribes “born criminals,” still exist today and ruled that they have no place in contemporary constitutional democracies. To prevent arbitrary arrests of DNT groups, the bench further ordered the police to adhere to the Court's rulings in “Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar” and “Amanatullah Khan v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi.” Additionally, the Court ordered the “National Legal Services Authority (NALSA)” to submit a joint status report on the current state of caste-based discrimination in prisons, based on the status reports of many “State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs).”

The fundamental principles of the Indian Constitution serve as the foundation for the Court's legal reasoning. It emphasises that all classifications, including caste-based ones, must have a justifiable purpose and not rehash past injustices. It was discovered that the discriminatory prison manuals, which divided inmates according to caste and gave menial jobs to underprivileged groups, had no logical connection to the goals of prison administration, including security and rehabilitation.

The Court further underlined that discrimination based on caste is an example of systemic oppression, which the Constitution aims to end. Together, “Articles 14 and 15” forbid arbitrary discrimination, while “Article 17” expressly outlaws untouchability and associated customs. The claim that no one should be subjected to humiliating treatment because of their caste is further supported by “Article 21's right to life and dignity”.

It is anticipated that this decision may spur further extensive changes to India's penal system, guaranteeing that correctional facilities preserve the equality and dignity guaranteed by the constitution. It emphasises the necessity of maintaining vigilance against long-standing caste prejudice and the continuous significance of social justice in the judicial system. The Indian criminal and penitentiary systems will be significantly impacted by this ruling:

• Immediate jail Manual Revision: In order to eradicate caste-based discrimination, States and Union Territories must update their jail manuals within three months. 

• Binding Model Act Reforms: The Union government is instructed by the Supreme Court to make changes to the “Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023,” so that it complies with the anti-discrimination provisions of the Constitution. 

• Institutional Accountability: Boards of Visitors and DLSAs, two improved monitoring bodies, will keep an eye on prison operations to eliminate discriminatory behaviour. 

• Strengthening of the Legal Framework: The ruling upholds the responsibility of legal service authorities to protect the rights of inmates, which may result in stricter enforcement of “Articles 21 and 23.”

• Systemic Change: In addition to prompting quick fixes, the ruling encourages a more extensive cultural movement to do away with caste-based prejudice in government agencies. 

In the present scenario, where caste was used as a means to govern how prisoners interact and spend their sentences, it was necessary to put the impugned provisions to the axe of the test. “Rule 289(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, 2022” provides: “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 perform such duties;…” These caste-based rules are in force across the country. Such rules do not form differentia intelliga but are vague and simply arbitrary. These rules affirm the persisting hierarchy of castes, which the constitution aims to eradicate. The Supreme Court of India noted this remnant of caste-based discrimination in prison in its recent ruling in “Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India”, wherein several sections of the prison manuals and rules of several states were declared unconstitutional due to their violation of “Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.” The ruling acknowledges that convicts have been subjected to systemic discrimination based on their social standing, which goes against the Constitution's guarantee of equality. 

A person's fundamental rights do not expire when they are incarcerated. The Supreme Court correctly noted in “State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy” That a prisoner still has the remaining fundamental rights and is constitutionally authorised to protect them. Therefore, even while imprisoned, the right to equal treatment in prisons cannot be violated. Additionally, it was decided in “Phul Singh v. State of Haryana” Inmate care needs to be designed to facilitate the “restoration of self-respect and cultural normalisation.” Therefore, the casteist classification and the reformative goal of the contested Prison Rules and Manual have no logical connection or relationship. In my opinion, this historic ruling was both necessary at the time and a positive development for the lives of the inmates.

Therefore, this ruling is a significant step in putting an end to the caste-based prejudice that still exists in Indian jails. The Supreme Court has often emphasized that a prisoner's fundamental rights do not immediately expire upon conviction. By overturning the discriminatory jail rule, the court has reiterated its case of the Guardian of Fundamental Rights. Additionally, this ruling emphasizes that casteist practices are unacceptable in a constitutional democracy such as India. This ruling is a victory for justice and humanity since it not only helps the disadvantaged inmates but also completes the system to guarantee fair treatment for everyone.