SUKANYA SHANTHA vs UNION OF INDIA, 2024
Case Title and Citation: Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India 2024 INSC 753 (3 October 2024)
Factual Background
The case was initiated by a journalist, Sukanya Shantha, who published an article on December 10, 2020, criticizing the prevalence of caste-based discrimination in the Indian prison system. Following the article, the Petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the legality of specific provisions found across various State Prison Manuals. These challenged rules mandated practices such as:
(i) restricting inmates sentenced to simple imprisonment from performing “degrading or menial” duties unless they belonged to communities “accustomed” to such labor;
(ii) requiring prisoner-cooks to be of a “suitable caste”;
(iii) appointing high-caste prisoners as cooks if they refused food prepared by existing cooks;
(iv) specifying that sweepers should be selected from castes such as Mether, Hari, or Chandal; and
(v) preventing members of “wandering tribes” from holding positions like convict overseer due to an alleged “strong natural tendency to escape”. The constitutional validity of these discriminatory provisions was contested.
Issue(s)
- Whether provisions within State Prison Manuals that classify or distinguish prisoners based on caste, including the assignment of labor and segregation, constitute a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
- Whether the use of terms like “suitable caste,” “degrading or menial duties,” and the stereotyping of communities such as Denotified Tribes as possessing a “natural tendency to escape” or being “habitual offenders” are legally permissible criteria for prison classification.
Decision of the Supreme Court
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court declared the challenged provisions in the State Prison Manuals unconstitutional. The Court definitively held that these provisions violate the rights enshrined in Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. The Court ordered all States and Union Territories to revise their Prison Manuals/Rules to align with the judgment within three months. Furthermore, the Court directed the immediate deletion of the “caste” column and any references to caste in all undertrial and convicted prisoners’ registers.
Reason for the decision
The Court provided detailed reasoning emphasizing the supremacy of constitutional values over colonial-era discriminatory practices:
- Violation of Equality (Article 14) and Non-Discrimination (Article 15): The classification of prisoners based on caste lacks any rational nexus with the objective of running prisons orderly or reforming inmates. Such classifications reinforce occupational immobility and institutional discrimination, denying prisoners an equal opportunity for reform. The manuals employed both direct discrimination (e.g., assigning cleaning tasks specifically to marginalized castes while reserving cooking for “high” castes) and indirect discrimination (using facially neutral phrases like “accustomed to perform such duties” for menial jobs, which disproportionately targets and perpetuates labor divisions among marginalized castes).
- Abolition of Untouchability (Article 17): The notion that certain occupations, such as sweeping or cleaning, are “degrading or menial” is rooted in the caste system and the practice of untouchability. Provisions requiring food to be cooked by a “suitable caste” or imposing caste-based divisions of work are practices of untouchability, which is prohibited under the Constitution.
- Protection of Life and Dignity (Article 21): The discriminatory rules prevent the personal growth and reformation of inmates by reinforcing caste barriers and group identity stereotypes, thereby violating their right to live with dignity and self-respect.
- Prohibition of Forced Labour (Article 23): Forcing inmates from oppressed castes to perform tasks classified as impure or low-grade, such as cleaning latrines or sweeping, based solely on their caste background and without choice, constitutes a form of coercion and amounts to “forced labour”. Imposing “degrading labour” upon prisoners is unconstitutional.
- Targeting Denotified Tribes: Rules that treat members of denotified tribes as having a “strong natural tendency to escape” or that link them to habitual criminality perpetuate colonial-era stereotypes, legitimizing discrimination that is prohibited under Article 15(1) as a form of caste discrimination.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court struck down the discriminatory provisions in the State Prison Manuals, establishing that institutional practices relying on caste for segregation, labor assignment, or stereotyping are unconstitutional. The judgment mandates systemic reform, requiring the Union and State governments to eliminate all forms of caste discrimination from prison administration, including deleting caste references from records and revising vague definitions of “habitual offender” that have historically targeted marginalized groups. The Court took suo motu cognizance of discrimination inside prisons on various grounds to ensure ongoing compliance.
