SC bans caste-based discrimination in prisons, quashes jail manual rules of 10 states

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said the provisions of Centre’s ‘Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act’ of 2023 do not contain a reference to the prohibition of caste-based discrimination in jails.

The observation to this effect was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in a landmark judgement by which it banned banned caste-based discrimination like division of manual labour, segregation of barracks and bias against prisoners of denotified tribes and habitual offenders.

The Union Ministry of Home Affairs, in consultation with various stakeholders, had prepared a draft legislation to replace previous “colonial legislations” which were “found to be outdated and obsolete”.

The MHA told the bench that the Model Act was “a comprehensive document which covers all relevant aspects of prison management, viz. security, safety, scientific & technological interventions, segregation of prisoners, special provision for women inmates, taking appropriate action against criminal activities of prisoners in the prison, grant of parole and furlough to prisoners, their education, vocational training and skill development, etc.”

Also Read: TN Prisons dept’s ‘blanket ban’ on prison news disregards basic rights of inmates

The CJI, in his judgement, said, “the Model Act does not contain a reference to the prohibition of caste-based discrimination. This is concerning because the Act empowers the officer-in-charge of the prison to ‘utilize the services of prisoners’ for ‘administration and management of the prisons’”.

While the Model Prison Manual of 2016 refers to the prohibition of caste discrimination in prisons in several provisions, the Model Act of 2023 has “completely avoided any such mention”, the judgement said.

It also found fault with the definition of “Habitual Offender” under the 2023 law and termed it “problematic”.

It states that, ‘Habitual Offender means a prisoner who is committed to prison repeatedly for a crime’. The phrase ‘committed to prison repeatedly’ is vague and over-broad.

“It can be used to declare anyone as a habitual offender, even if they have not been convicted for a crime,” the judgement said.

The top court also analysed the manuals and the rules by examining whether caste was a ground of classification before the Constitution came into force and referred to historical instances.

“According to the Committee on Prison Discipline 1836-38, to force a man of ‘higher caste’ to work at any trade would ‘disgrace him’ and his family, and would be viewed as cruelty,” it said.

“However, this Court cannot adopt the approach taken by the colonial administrators. The impugned provisions shall be examined on the basis of principles laid under the Constitution,” it said.

It also said caste can be an intelligible principle of classification as it has been used to create protective policies for the marginalized castes.

The Constitution recognises caste as a proscribed ground of discrimination under Article 15(1) and envisions a society free from caste-prejudices, it said.

“However, as evident from the language of Article 15(1), caste cannot be a ground to discriminate against members of marginalized castes. Any use of caste as a basis for classification must withstand judicial scrutiny to ensure it does not perpetuate discrimination against the oppressed castes.

“While caste-based classifications are permissible under certain constitutional provisions, they are strictly regulated to ensure they serve the purpose of promoting equality and social justice,” it said.

In the context of prisons, valid classification must be a functional classification and it should be done keeping in mind the security, discipline as well as reform and rehabilitation.

“This has been the objective. However, there is no nexus between classifying prisoners based on caste and securing the objectives of security or reform. Limitations on inmates that are cruel, or irrelevant to rehabilitation are per se unreasonable, arbitrary and constitutionally suspect,” it said.

Inmates are entitled to fair treatment that promotes rehabilitation and classification of any kind must be geared towards the same, it said.

“Courts have been enjoined with the duty ‘to invigorate the intra-mural man-management so that the citizen inside has spacious opportunity to unfold his potential without overmuch inhibition or sadistic overseeing’,” it said.

Segregating prisoners on the basis of caste would reinforce caste differences or animosity that ought to be prevented at the first place and it would not lead to rehabilitation, it added.

"We have held that assigning cleaning and sweeping work to marginalised and assigning cooking to higher caste is nothing but violation of Article 15 (it forbids discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, gender, or place of birth or any of them)," the CJI said.

The bench referred to an Uttar Pradesh law which provides that a person undergoing simple imprisonment will not work in degrading and menial work unless his caste is used to do such jobs.

"We hold that no group is born as a scavenger class or to do or not do menial jobs. The classes who can cook and who cannot cook are aspects of untouchability which cannot be permitted....Sweepers should be chosen from ‘chandal’ caste is nothing but entirely opposed to subs