The Supreme Court in the case Sukanya Shantha vs. Union Of India observed and has issued the notice to the Union Government and thirteen State Governments on a Public Interest Litigation, PIL moved wherein the issue of caste-based segregation in prisons in various states has been highlighted before the court.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra in the case observed and was apprised of the state of affairs in several prisons across the nation where the prison manuals reinforce caste-based discrimination through caste hierarchy in the division of labour and the segregation of barracks.
The bench in the case observed that the discrimination is taking place in three aspects:
1. The Division of manual labour;
2. The segregation of barracks on caste lines;
3. The extant provisions which discriminate against prisoners which belongs to de notified tribes and ‘habitual offenders’ in the state prison manuals;
Facts of the Case:
The Petitioner, Sukanya Shanta, who being the journalist had authored the award-winning report ‘From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System’ which is published by The Wire on December 10, 2020, which forms the subject matter of the present petition.
It has been highlighted in the report that several offending provisions in the State Prison Manuals, such as the provisions in Rajasthan Prison Rules 1951 provide,
67. the Selection of cooks, and cooking of food. The cook shall be of the non-habitual class and any Brahmin or sufficiently high caste Hindu prisoner from this class is eligible for appointment as cook. Thus, all the prisoners who object on account of high caste to eat food which is prepared by the existing cooks shall be appointed a cook and be made to cook for the full complement of men.
The counsel, Sr. Advocate S. Muralidhar appearing for the petitioner mentioned the plight of Palayamkottai Central Jail in Tamil Nadu where Thevars, Nadars, and Pallars were being separated into caste-based barracks and the jurisdiction for this segregation has also been affirmed by the Madras High Court in the case C. Arul v. The Secretary to Government of 2012, wherein it was seen as a method to prevent caste rivalries.
The petitioner in the plea highlighted that while these colonial-spirited laws have been amended to some extent by the States, the discriminatory practices continue to take place within the prisons. For example, the old Uttar Pradesh Prison Manual, 1941 provided the maintenance of caste prejudices of prisoners and the designation of cleaning, conservancy, and sweeping work on caste basis were allowed under the prison manual.
The court in the case observed that in 2022 amendments were made wherein it align with the Model Manual, removing provisions for allotting work based on caste. Thus, despite the said change, the 2022 Manual still upholds a rule related to the preservation of caste prejudice and the segregation of habitual offenders.
It has also been highlighted in the petitioner in the plea that identical discriminatory laws within the State Prison Manual of 13 major states including Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, Punjab, Bihar, Maharashtra, etc.
The petitioner in the plea prayed for a declaration to the effect of holding such discriminatory provisions of the Prison Manuals and Rules as void, inoperative and ultra vires as stated under Article 14, Article 15, Article 17 and Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
The court in the case directed the respondent to undertake strong action tin order o prevent the continuance of forced caste-based labour and segregation in jails along with a specific direction for proactive disclosure of prison manuals, ‘through greater digitisation of the state prison manual on the website of respective Home departments, and to undertake regular printing of prison manuals to be readily available.’
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has issued the notice, thus, the court asked the petitioner to furnish a tabulated chart indicating the discriminatory state-wise provisions and requested the Solicitor General, Mr Tushar Mehta to assist the Court.
Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further consideration after 4 weeks.
The counsel Advocate-on-Record S Prasanna moved the present plea.