Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Sukanya Shantha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 1404 of 2023
Decided on : 03-10-2024
Summary: The Supreme Court of India, in Writ Petition (C) No. 1404 of 2023 (Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India), decided on 03-10-2024, held that caste-based discrimination in state prison manuals/rules—such as segregation of barracks, allocation of menial labor (e.g., scavenging, sweeping to "scavenger class" or castes "accustomed" to such duties), cooking by "suitable caste," preferential treatment based on "superior mode of living," and classification/targeting of "habitual offenders" or denotified/wandering tribes—violates Articles 14 (equality, non-arbitrariness), 15 (non-discrimination on caste), 17 (abolition of untouchability), 21 (dignity, rehabilitation), and 23 (forced labour) of the Constitution.[2024 Supreme(SC) 853] (!) (!) (!) (!) These provisions perpetuate stereotypes, direct/indirect discrimination, systemic bias against Scheduled Castes/Tribes/denotified communities, and colonial legacies (e.g., Criminal Tribes Act), undermining prison reform, individual assessment, and substantive equality. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Classification must be functional/objective (e.g., security, correctional needs via committees), not caste/habit-based; "degrading/menial" tasks or stereotypes (e.g., "natural tendency to escape") are impermissible. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Model Prison Manual 2016 and Model Prisons Act 2023 held inadequate for not fully prohibiting caste segregation/labor division (beyond kitchens). (!) Directions: (i) States/UTs revise manuals within 3 months; (ii) Union amends Model Manual/Act; (iii) "Habitual offender" per state laws (if any), else delete references; (iv) Delete "caste" columns/registers; (v) Police follow arrest guidelines; (vi) Suo motu case "In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons"; (vii) Compliance reports; (viii) DLSAs/Visitors inspect/report caste discrimination; (ix) Circulate judgment. (!) (!)
No. Caste cannot serve as a valid basis for classification in prisons as it lacks rational nexus with security, discipline, or rehabilitation objectives. Such classification reinforces caste differences and violates Article 14. (Para 166 , 170 )
Yes. Assigning degrading or menial work to marginalized castes while privileged castes perform cooking constitutes direct discrimination under Article 15(1). Indirect discrimination also arises through vague terms like menial and accustomed that carry embedded bias against marginalized communities. (Para 171 , 172 , 173 )
Yes. Forcing prisoners from marginalized castes to perform degrading labor without choice amounts to forced labor prohibited under Article 23. Article 23 is a caste-conscious provision protecting oppressed castes from exploitation of their labour without adequate return. (Para 192 , 193 , 194 )
Yes. The classification of habitual offender in prison manuals has been used to target members of denotified tribes based on colonial-era stereotypes of criminality by birth. Such vague and broad definitions are constitutionally suspect and are struck down as unconstitutional. (Para 218 , 219 )
No. The Model Prison Manual 2016 fails to explicitly prohibit caste-based segregation of prisoners, does not prohibit division of work on caste basis except in cooking, and does not adequately address discrimination against denotified tribes or the misuse of habitual offender classifications. (Para 199 , 203 , 204 )
JUDGMENT :
Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI
| Contents | |
| I. | The Writ Petition |
| II. | Submissions |
| III. | Constitutional Interpretation |
| IV. | The Constitution of Emancipation, Equality, and Dignity |
| V. | The Contours of Article 14 |
| VI. | Non-Discrimination under Article 15 |
| VII. | The Ban on Untouchability in Article 17 |
| VIII. | Article 21: Of Life and Dignity |
| IX. | Article 23: Prohibition of Forced Labour and Human Trafficking |
| X. | A History of Discrimination in the Pre-Colonial Era |
| XI. | The Colonial Suppression of Marginalized Castes and Tribes |
| i. | Criminal Tribes Acts |
| ii. | Caste Discrimination in Colonial India |
| iii. | Repeal of Criminal Tribes Act |
| XII. | Jurisprudence on Social Protection in Post-Independence India |
| XIII. | Impugned Provisions |
| XIV. | Prison Manuals and the Legacy of Discrimination |
| XV. | Model Prison Manual 2016: Whether Adequate? |
| XVI. | Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023 |
| XVII. | The Continued Targeting of Denotified Tribes |
| XVIII. | The Role of Legal Service Authorities in Prisons |
| XIX. | The Future of Substantive Equality & Institutional Discrimination |
| XX. | Conclusion and Directions |
I. The Writ Petition
1. The petitioner, Sukanya Shantha, a journalist, wrote an article “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 the prisons in the country. The petitioner has sought directions for repeal of the offending provisions in State prison manuals. By an order dated 10 July 2024, judgment was reserved. We have heard a broad diversity of viewpoints from across India. Besides counsel for the petitioner and the intervenor, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) of India appeared for the Union of India. The States of Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Orissa, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu appeared through counsel.
II. Submissions
2 Dr. S. Muralidhar, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner highlighted the issue of caste-based discrimination in the prisons in India. It was argued that various State prison manuals sanction blatantly unconstitutional practices, which are violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution of India. Ms. Disha Wadekar referred to a chart of provisions from different State prison manuals/rules to highlight various forms of discrimination in the prisons. She highlighted that caste-based discrimination continues to persist in the prisons in the country with respect to: (i) The division of manual labour; (ii) Segregation of barracks; and (iii) Provisions that discriminate against prisoners belonging to Denotified tribes and “habitual offenders”. She further argued that the Model Prison Manual, 2016 does not address the impugned provisions related to caste discrimination inside prisons other than the discrimination in kitchens, and that it is not “model” when it comes to addressing caste discrimination. In the written submissions, the petitioner’s side has further submitted that the Home Departments of the Respondent States may also be directed to clarify the definition of “Habitual Offenders” in their respective prison manuals so as to prevent its misuse against the denotified tribes in prisons.
3. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Learned ASG, submitted a written note arguing that the Ministry of Home Affairs prepared the Model Prison Manual for the Superintendence and Management of Prisons in India, 2003 and The Model Prison Manual, 2016, and circulated it to all States and Union Territories (UTs) in May 2016 explicitly prohibiting caste and religion based discrimination practices. She also referred to the Advisory dated 26 February 2024 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, through the Deputy
AI
Caste-based discrimination in prison manuals violates Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution, undermining individual dignity and rehabilitation efforts.
Sub-classification within Scheduled Castes for affirmative action is constitutionally permissible if it meets the intelligible differentia test and doesn't exclude any caste from benefits, overruling....
(1) When Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney held that 50% is upper limit of reservation under Article 16(4), it is law which is binding under Article 141 and to be implemented. When law is laid down....
The judgment established the right of convicts to compensation and facilities for work-related injuries, emphasizing the duty of the State and jail authorities to ensure the well-being and rights of ....
The judgment establishes the principle that the rights of prisoners, including the legality of their confinement and denial of facilities, are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the ....
Reservation to transgenders - In the absence of any steps taken by the State, failure of its instrumentalities to provide reservation to transgenders does not make the notification impugned in this w....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation to pay appropriate wages/salary to individuals who discharge duties as assigned by the employer, irrespective of the legality of ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
