Introduction
On October 3, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 1404 of 2023). The case is pivotal in addressing caste-based discrimination within Indian prisons. The verdict, delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice of India Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, emphasized the constitutional commitment to equality, non-discrimination, and human dignity, especially for marginalized communities. This article delves into the key facets of the judgment, the constitutional interpretation offered by the Court, and the wider implications for India's prison system.
Background
The case was filed by Sukanya Shantha, a journalist, who authored an article in December 2020 titled “From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System.” The article highlighted the entrenched caste-based discrimination in prisons, sparking national debate and judicial scrutiny. Shantha, through the writ petition, sought the repeal of provisions in State prison manuals that perpetuate discriminatory practices, including the segregation of barracks and division of labor based on caste.
The Court’s decision, which had been reserved since July 2024, also heard interventions from various States, such as Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, and sought clarifications from the Union Government about reforms to prison manuals.
Key Constitutional Provisions and Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar, contended that several provisions of prison manuals across various States violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. These articles enshrine the right to equality, non-discrimination, and dignity, and prohibit untouchability and forced labor.
The core argument was that even though the Constitution abolished untouchability (Article 17) and guaranteed equality before the law (Article 14), caste-based discrimination persisted in prisons, where individuals from denotified tribes and so-called “habitual offenders” faced systemic biases. The segregation of prison barracks, allocation of menial labor to lower-caste prisoners, and biased treatment against marginalized groups were identified as unconstitutional practices.
The Judgment: A Step Towards Emancipation
The judgment is an eloquent and comprehensive analysis of India’s constitutional philosophy, particularly the anti-caste provisions. Chief Justice Chandrachud’s opinion spans constitutional interpretation, the historical legacy of caste-based discrimination, and the role of the judiciary in advancing social justice.
- Constitutional Interpretation: The Court reiterated that the Constitution is a living document that must adapt to evolving societal values. It must be interpreted not merely as a legal text but as a social blueprint that aspires for an egalitarian society. The judges emphasized that constitutional values such as equality and dignity are foundational to Indian democracy.
- Article 14 and 15 – Equality and Non-Discrimination: The judgment extensively discussed Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination). Caste-based discrimination, the Court held, violates the equality principle enshrined in Article 14. Further, Article 15 prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination. The Court rejected the argument that the classification of prisoners based on caste could be justified under prison management requirements.
- Article 17 – Abolition of Untouchability: The Court expounded on Article 17, which abolishes untouchability and criminalizes its practice. Chief Justice Chandrachud observed that the persistence of caste-based discrimination in prisons is tantamount to modern-day untouchability. The Constitution’s framers intentionally left the term “untouchability” undefined to ensure its broad application in eliminating social stigmas attached to caste. The judgment affirms that any practice in prisons based on the notions of caste hierarchy violates Article 17.
- Article 21 – Right to Dignity: The Court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity, even for prisoners. Caste-based discrimination, which subjects lower-caste prisoners to dehumanizing treatment, undermines the dignity of individuals and violates Article 21. The Court emphasized that prisons should serve as spaces for reform and rehabilitation rather than perpetuating societal discrimination.
- Prison Reforms: The judgment acknowledged efforts by the Ministry of Home Affairs to update prison manuals, particularly the Model Prison Manual, 2016, which explicitly prohibits caste-based discrimination. However, the Court found that these efforts had not been fully implemented by many States. The judgment directed all States to ensure that discriminatory provisions in prison manuals are repealed, and to implement non-discriminatory practices uniformly.
Impact and Implications
This judgment is a significant step in dismantling institutionalized caste discrimination in India’s prison system. It sends a strong message about the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the constitutional mandate of equality and dignity. The decision may also pave the way for broader reforms aimed at addressing systemic caste biases across public institutions.
Some key takeaways from the judgment include:
- Enforcement of Equality: The Court’s directive to repeal discriminatory prison manual provisions underscores the importance of proactive measures by the State to ensure equality and justice in public institutions.
- Rehabilitation vs. Punishment: The judgment reinforces the idea that prisons should focus on the rehabilitation of individuals rather than perpetuating social hierarchies and exclusion.
- Judicial Scrutiny of State Practices: By holding States accountable for discriminatory practices in prisons, the judgment serves as a reminder that all public institutions must align with constitutional values.
- Potential for Further Legal Action: The ruling opens the door for more petitions and challenges against caste-based discrimination in other sectors, such as education, employment, and social welfare.
The Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India case represents a vital moment in the Indian judiciary’s commitment to upholding the Constitution’s promise of equality, non-discrimination, and human dignity. By addressing the long-standing issue of caste-based discrimination in prisons, the Supreme Court has not only struck a blow against an outdated and inhumane system but also reaffirmed the Constitution’s transformative potential in building a just and equitable society.
The Supreme court of India Conclusion and Directions:
"The impugned provisions are declared unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. All States and Union Territories are directed to revise their Prison Manuals/Rules in accordance with this judgment within a period of three months;
The Union government is directed to make necessary changes, as highlighted in this judgment, to address caste-based discrimination in the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 within a period of three months.
........" .