Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 853

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

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. S. Muralidhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prasanna S., AOR Ms. Disha Wadekar, Adv. Mr. M.a. Karthik, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Swati Arya, Adv. Mr. Maitreya Subramanyam, Adv. Ms. Pallak Bhagat, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Mani Munjal, Adv. Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv. Mr. B.k.satija, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, AOR Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR Mr. Pawan Kishore Singh, Adv. Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Adv. Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. Durgesh Ramchandra Gupta, AOR

Caste-based discrimination in prison manuals violates Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution, undermining individual dignity and rehabilitation efforts.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 - Caste-based discrimination in prisons - Petitioner challenged provisions in State prison manuals that perpetuate caste discrimination and violate constitutional rights - Court found that the impugned provisions discriminate against marginalized castes and denotified tribes, reinforcing stereotypes and violating principles of equality and dignity. (Paras 1, 2, 231)

(B) Discrimination - The Court emphasized that caste cannot be a basis for classification in prisons, as it undermines individual dignity and rehabilitation efforts, and that the classification of prisoners must be based on objective assessments rather than caste identity. (Paras 167, 171)

(C) Right to Dignity - The Court ruled that the right to live with dignity extends to prisoners, and any caste-based segregation or assignment of menial tasks is unconstitutional. (Paras 185, 192)

(D) Conclusion - The Court declared the impugned provisions unconstitutional and directed all States to revise their prison manuals to eliminate caste-based discrimination within three months. (Paras 231)

Judgement Key Points

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. (!) (!)

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