Issuing directions to states to end caste discriminatory provisions in their prisons, the Supreme Court on October 3, 2024 passed a detailed judgement declaring the provisions in Prison Manuals that allow caste-based discrimination as unconstitutional. A correspondent with The Wire, journalist Sukanya Shantha’s petition is pathbreaking
Sukanya Shantha, a journalist wrote an article “From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System”—published in December 2020—highlighting the caste-based discriminations in the prisons in the country. She also petitioned to the court to repeal the provisions in State Prison Manuals which perpetuate caste discrimination.
Not content with winning awards for the investigation, she petitioned the highest court in the land and achieved results. State have been given three months’ time to comply, make the required changes in their respective Prison Manuals. The Supreme Court has now taken suo moto cognisance of the continuing case, requiring compliance. The court is now examining discrimination inside prisons on any ground such as caste, gender, disability and asked all the States and also directed the Union government to file a compliance report.
This article aims to explain what the provisions were, what the arguments were against these provisions, and the reasoning of the judgement Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India [2024 INSC 753]:
What are the discriminatory provisions?
| State | Provisions |
| Rajasthan | Prisoners who are likely to escape or are members of a wandering/criminal tribe, even though eligible, shall not be employed on extramural work. |
| Himachal Pradesh | If there are no females of suitable caste for conservancy work, paid-sweepers shall be taken into the enclosure in charge of a wander, under conditions laid down in paragraph 214. |
| Karnataka & Tamil Nadu | Convicted prisoners were divided into classes. Class A includes non-habitual prisoners of good character, who by social status, education, and habit of life, are accustomed to a superior mode of living. |
| Madhya Pradesh & Chhattisgarh | During latrine cleaning, mehtars must be present. Habitual criminals include members of dacoit gangs, thieves, or denotified tribes, subject to state discretion. Cooks must belong to the non-habitual class. |
| West Bengal | Convict overseers can be appointed as night guards if they have served for three months and do not belong to wandering tribes. Food shall be cooked and carried to the cells by prisoner-cooks of suitable caste. The barber should belong to the A class; Sweepers should be chosen from the Mether or Hari Caste, also from the Chandal or the other cases, if by custom of the district they perform similar work when free, or from any caste if the prisoners volunteer to do the work. Any prisoner in a jail who is of high caste and objects that he cannot eat food cooked by the existing cooks shall be appointed a cook and be made to cook for the full complement of men |
| Uttar Pradesh | Convicts working as scavengers are entitled to remissions based on good conduct same scale as night watchmen or convict overseers even if they are not promoted to that level. Convicts serving simple imprisonment cannot be called upon to perform degrading duties unless they belong to communities accustomed to such work, though they may carry water for their own use. |
| Gujarat & Maharashtra | Habitual women prisoners, prostitutes, and young women prisoners must be segregated. |
| Kerala | Classification of individuals from Criminal Tribes is subject to government discretion. |
| Odisha | Prisoners likely to escape or members of a wandering/criminal tribe shall not be employed on extramural work, even if eligible. |
| Punjab | Sweepers should be chosen from the Mehtar or similar caste, but prisoners of other castes may volunteer. Habitual prisoners must wear identifying caps (yellow or red pugri for Sikhs). |
Submissions by parties
Petitioners
It was emphasised that State prison manuals themselves endorse unconstitutional caste-based discrimination, violating multiple constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23. The petitioners also highlighted the various forms of discrimination in prisons across the country with respect to division of manual labour, segregation of barracks and provisions that discriminate against prisoners belonging to de-notified tribes and habitual offenders. The Model Prison Manual, 2016—prepared by the Union and circulated to states for them to adopt-does not address the provisions related to caste discrimination inside prisons, other than the discrimination in kitchens, argued the petitioners.
Petitioners also prayed that the Home Departments of the State Governments be directed to clarify the definition of Habitual Offenders in their respective prison manuals so as to prevent its misuse against denotified tribes in prisons.
Respondent-governments
The counsel for Union government submitted that the Model Prison Manual, 2016— circulated to all governments—explicitly prohibits caste and religion-based discrimination practices and that another advisory was given to states to ensure that prison manuals do not contain discriminatory provisions.
The counsel for the state of West Bengal submitted that the discriminatory provisions are under scrutiny and a proposal is underway to amend them. The counsel for the intervenor prayed for deletion of “caste’ column and any reference to castes in undertrial and/or convicts’ prisoners’ registers.
Judgement
Tests of Articles 14, 17, 21 and 23
The Supreme Court noted the various tests that have been evolved through decades of jurisprudence on Articles 14, 17, 21 and 23. It stated that the Constitution demands that colonial-era laws comply with its provisions. It emphasizes reversing colonial philosophies of subordinating individuals to the state, acknowledging past injustices to shape a just, humane future for all citizens, according to the Court. The Court stated that criminal laws must not reflect colonial or pre-colonial ideologies.
The following, essentially, are the tests and interpretations of concerned articles the Court arrived at, from the rich constitutional jurisprudence.
On Article 14: Article 14 permits classification if it is intelligible and reasonably connected to its purpose, but it cannot be arbitrary. Courts must assess the true legislative intent and prevent excessive or irrational actions by the state
[Para 34 of the judgement].
On Article 15: Discrimination can be direct or indirect, and laws must not harm marginalised groups. The state has an obligation to prevent both systemic and indirect discrimination, as courts are tasked with addressing the deeper roots of such biases
[Para 48 of the judgement].
On Article 17: Article 17 ensures equality and prohibits practices like untouchability. Laws such as the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989Act and those banning manual scavenging aim to uphold dignity and dismantle caste-based discrimination
[Para 54 of the judgement].
On Article 21: Under Article 21, prisoners retain their dignity and must be treated humanely. Prison systems should address both the physical and mental health needs of incarcerated individuals, ensuring their rights are upheld
[Para 67 of the judgement].
On Article 23: Article 23 prohibits exploitative labour practices, including non-payment of wages and lack of social security. It applies to both state and private entities, ensuring protection from degrading labour, even in prisons
[Para 85 of the judgement].
The Supreme Court acknowledged and extensively discussed the historical struggles faced by De-notified Tribes, tracing their challenges from colonial times to post-Independence India. It highlighted the transition from punitive measures for habitual offenses to their eventual decriminalization, which marked a significant shift in recognizing their rights. The Court also pointed out the establishment of the Criminal Tribes Act Enquiry Committee, which was tasked with examining the Act’s implications and addressing the injustices faced by these communities. Ultimately, this process culminated in the repeal of the Criminal Tribes Act
[Paragraphs 87-126 of the judgement].
The court stated as follows:
“Discrimination against the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Denotified Tribes has continued in a systemic manner. Remedying systemic discrimination requires concrete multi-faceted efforts by all institutions. In discharge of their role, courts have to ensure that while there should be proper implementation of the protective legislation such as the PoA Act, there should not be unfair targeting of members from marginalized castes under various colonial-era or modern laws. With this nuanced approach, we shall now examine the prison manuals.”
[Para 144 of the judgement]
On Caste being an “intelligent principle of classification”
The Court noted that caste can be an intelligent 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, it added. The caveat, according to the court was that any use of caste as a basis for classification must withstand judicial scrutiny to ensure that it does not perpetuate discrimination against the oppressed castes
[Para 164 of the judgement]
Valid Classification must be a functional classification, according to the court. The Court found that there is no nexus between classifying prisoners based on caste and securing the objectives of security and reform. In this context, it stated as follows:
“Inmates are entitled to fair treatment that promotes rehabilitation, and classification of any kind must be geared towards the same. 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”. Segregating prisoners on the basis of caste would reinforce caste differences or animosity that ought to be prevented at the first place. Segregation would not lead to rehabilitation.”
[Para 166 of the judgement]
The court ruled that the differentia between inmates that distinguishes on the basis of “habit”, “custom”, “superior mode of living”, and “natural tendency to escape”, etc. is unconstitutionally vague and indeterminate. These terms and phrases, according to the Court, do not serve as an intelligible differentia, that can be used to demarcate one class of prisoners from the other.
[Para 162 of the judgement]
For the lack of both intelligible differentia and a nexus with the object, the Court ruled that the rules that discriminate among individual prisoners on the basis of their caste specifically or indirectly by referring to proxies of caste identity are violative of Article 14 on account of invalid classification and subversion of substantive equality.
On discriminatory manuals
The Court noted that the impugned provisions discriminated against marginalized castes and favored certain privileged groups. By assigning menial tasks, such as cleaning and sweeping, to marginalized castes while allowing higher castes to perform cooking, the provisions constituted direct discrimination under Article 15(1).
The Court highlighted that— phrases like “menial jobs” and “castes accustomed to perform such duties,” though appearing neutral, reflected historical discrimination and reinforced harmful stereotypes. This language perpetuated traditional caste-based divisions of labour, undermining the constitutional commitment to equality.
Furthermore, the Court criticised rules that classified individuals from de-notified tribes as inherently predisposed to criminality, which reinforced damaging stereotypes and excluded these communities from meaningful social participation.
Ultimately, the Court ruled that these discriminatory practices could not coexist with the constitutional values of equality and non-discrimination, emphasizing the need to dismantle oppressive frameworks that harm marginalized communities. [Para 175 of the judgement]
On Rules being violative of Article 17
To consider an occupation “degrading or menial” is an aspect of the caste system and untouchability, the Court noted. It stated as follows regarding the practices of untouchability in the Indian Prisons:
“Refusal to check caste practices or prejudices amounts to cementing of such practices. If such practices are based on the oppression of the marginalized castes, then such practices cannot be left untouched. The Constitution mandates an end to caste discrimination and untouchability. The provision that food shall be cooked by “suitable caste” reflects notions of untouchability, where certain castes are considered suitable for cooking or handling kitchen work, while others are not. Besides, the division of work on the basis of caste is a practice of untouchability prohibited under the Constitution.”
[Para 180 of the judgement]
The court particularly stated that a prisoner of a high caste be allowed to refuse the food cooked by other castes is a legal sanction by the state Authorities to untouchability and the caste system. On the provisions related to ‘wandering tribes’ and ‘criminal tribes’ the Court stated that these provisions reflect a stereotype that has its basis in the colonial understanding of the India’s Caste system. It stated as follows:
“These stereotypes not only criminalize entire communities but also reinforce caste-based prejudices. They resemble a form of untouchability, as they assign certain negative traits to specific groups based on identity, perpetuating their marginalization and exclusion. By marking them as “criminal by birth,” the law institutionalized a prejudiced view of these tribes, treating them as inherently dishonest and prone to theft. This stereotype—echoing elements of untouchability—reduced their humanity to a set of negative traits and perpetuated their exclusion from mainstream society. Once labelled a criminal tribe, individuals from these communities faced systematic discrimination in employment, education, and social services. The stigma attached to these labels extended beyond legal frameworks and became a part of social consciousness”
[Para 183 of the judgement]
On Right to overcome caste prejudices under Article 21
The court stated that the impugned rules foster antiquated notions of fitness of a particular community for a certain designated job. It noted that such rules are indifferent to the potential of the individual prisoner to reform and the state of affairs they operate in is entirely opposed to substantive equality as it contributes to institutional discrimination—depriving inmates of marginalised castes of an opportunity to reform like everyone else. In this context, it stated as follows:
“When Prison Manuals restrict the reformation of prisoners from marginalized communities, they violate their right to life. At the same time, such provisions deprive prisoners from marginalized groups of a sense of dignity and the expectation that they should be treated equally. When prisoners from marginalized communities are subjected to discriminatory practices based on caste, their inherent dignity is violated.”
[Para 188 of the judgement]
On caste-based division of labour being forced labour
The court noted that provision that “food” shall be cooked by prisoner-cooks of “suitable caste” empowers the jail officer to discriminate against the marginalised castes. The Court observed that it takes away the opportunity from them to cook food and the imposition of cleaning latrines and sweeping work to only “Mehtar, Hari caste or Chandal” or similar castes is forcing only a type of work, which is considered low-grade, upon them. In this context, the court noted as follows:
“However, the prison rules, by exploiting the labour of the oppressed castes, perpetuate the same injustice to guard against which Article 23 was inserted into the Constitution. Assigning labour based on caste background strips individuals of their liberty to engage in meaningful work, and denies them the opportunity to rise above the constraints imposed by their social identity”
[Para 195 of the judgement]
Is Model Prison Manual, 2016 adequate?
The court noted that the Model Prison Manual, 2016 defines ‘Habitual Offender’ as a prisoner classified as such in accordance with the provisions of applicable law or rules. The Court noted that since the phrase ‘habitual offender’ in several prison manuals refers to people for de-notified tribes or wandering tribes, the definition cannot be left to be interpreted and applied in accordance with the provisions of appliable law and rules.
The Manual prohibits neither the physical caste-based segregation of prisoners (except in prisons for women) nor does it prohibit division of work on the basis of caste, except in cooking.
The court noted that Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, which prohibit manual scavenging has a binding effect even on prisons. In relation to toilets, manual scavenging or hazardous cleaning of a sewer or a septic tank inside a prison shall not be permitted, ruled the Court.
[Paragraphs 200-208 of the judgement]
On Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023
The court noted that the Model Act does not contain any reference to the prohibition of caste-based discrimination, raising significant concerns about the potential for caste-based discrimination in prison management. It was highlighted that the officer-in-charge of the prison is empowered to utilize the services of prisoners for administration and management, which could lead to discriminatory practices if not properly regulated. The court suggested that a provision should be inserted in the Model Act to explicitly ban any segregation or division of work based on caste.
[Paragraphs 210-212 of the judgement]
Furthermore, the court pointed out that the definition of “Habitual Offender” under Section 2(12) is problematic due to its vague wording, stating that it refers to a prisoner who is committed to prison repeatedly for a crime. This broad definition could classify individuals as habitual offenders without requiring a proper conviction, potentially leading to unjust consequences. The Act also creates a separate category for “recidivists,” defined as prisoners convicted of a crime more than once, which allows for additional classification and segregation.
Additionally, the court expressed concern regarding Chapter IX of the Model Act, which addresses the protection of society from the activities of high-risk prisoners, habitual offenders, and hardened criminals. The provisions in this chapter were deemed over-broad, as they impose restrictions on parole and furlough eligibility for these categories of prisoners. The court emphasized that such provisions grant wide powers to the police, raising the possibility of misuse, and called for careful scrutiny to prevent potential abuses of authority.
On the term ‘Habitual Offender’
The court noted that “habitual offender” legislations were enacted to replace the Criminal Tribes Act but have been misapplied in certain states, such as Rajasthan, to refer to individuals from criminal tribes or de-notified tribes. This misuse has extended to various Prison Manuals and Rules, which have defined “habitual offender” in a manner that encompasses members of de-notified or wandering tribes. The court asserted that it is unacceptable to label an entire community as criminal, either historically or in the present context, emphasizing that the classification of “habitual offender” has been used disproportionately to target members of denotified tribes.
[Para 218 of the judgement]
Since the habitual offender laws enacted by the state are not under challenge, the Court did not go into their validity. However, it noted that the classification into Habitual offenders is Constitutionally Suspect given the vague and broad language employed by various laws and rules-which then can be used to target members of denotified tribes.
[Para 219 of the judgement]
The court urged state governments to reconsider the necessity of habitual offender laws within a constitutional framework. It stated that the definition of “habitual offender” in prison manuals and rules must align with the respective state legislation, pending any future constitutional challenges against the act itself. In the absence of such legislation, references to habitual offenders are deemed unconstitutional and were struct down by the Court. The court directed both Union and State governments to amend prison manuals and rules in line with this judgement.
Directions by the Court
- The impugned provisions were declared unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. All States and Union Territories were directed to revise their Prison Manuals/Rules in accordance with this judgment within a period of three months;
- The Union government was directed to make necessary changes, as highlighted in the judgment, to address caste-based discrimination in the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 within a period of three months;
- References to “habitual offenders” in the prison manuals/Model Prison Manual shall be in accordance with the definition provided in the habitual offender legislation enacted by the respective State legislatures, subject to any constitutional challenge against such legislation in the future. All other references or definitions of “habitual offenders” in the impugned prison manuals/rules were declared unconstitutional. In case, there is no habitual offender legislation in the State, the Union and the State governments were directed to make necessary changes in line with the judgement, within a period of three months.
- The “caste” column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts’ prisoners’ registers inside the prisons shall be deleted;
- The Police was directed to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi (2024) to ensure that members of Denotified Tribes are not subjected to arbitrary arrest;
- The Court took suo motu cognizance of the discrimination inside prisons on any ground such as caste, gender, disability, and shall list the case from now onwards as In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India. The Registry was directed to list the case after a period of three months before an appropriate Bench; On the first date of hearing of the above suo motu petition, all States and the Union government were directed to file a compliance report on this judgment;
- The DLSAs and the Board of Visitors formed under the Model Prison Manual 2016 shall jointly conduct regular inspections to identify whether caste-based discrimination or similar discriminatory practices, as highlighted in this judgment, are still taking place inside prisons. The DLSAs and the Board of Visitors shall submit a joint report of their inspection to the SLSAs, which shall compile a common report and forward it to NALSA, which shall in turn file a joint status report before this Court in the above-mentioned suo motu writ petition; and
- The Union government was directed to circulate a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union territories within a period of three weeks from the date of delivery of this judgment.
Conclusion
The Court used the rich, available jurisprudence to negate the impugned rules on all counts of Articles 14, 17, 21 and 23. However, the Court did not provide any reasoning as to why the deletion of column of caste in jail register is being ordered. While it is a relevant direction which would have the result of superintendents or any jail officer having no information about a prisoner’s caste for them to be able to discriminate, there is a threat of this rule being used to render invisible the incarceration of the marginalised communities.
According the 2022 Prison Statistics, compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau(NCRB) from States and UTs, 2 in 3 undertrial prisoners belong to the oppressed caste groups of SC, ST and OBC communities. This has been a trend, according to a study by Indiaspend, and the share has remained over 60% for 25 years since 1998. It is unclear if states and UTs collect the caste data from the registers and if they do so, deletion of caste column would erase the future data points on prison populations. It is not to say that the benefit of these data points supersedes the chance of potential discrimination in prisons due to caste column. Notably, even with the deletion of caste column, jail officers could know the caste by simply asking the prisoners. The judgement while being progressive and extensively explanatory for the most part, misses this discussion.
Prisons, as Foucault argued, are where the state’s power is most visibly and viscerally exercised. They’re not just places of confinement—they are arenas where the state’s authority shapes lives, controlling bodies and behaviour. One would assume that such a concentrated expression of power would automatically impose the state’s ideals, erasing societal divisions like caste. After all, in a prison, nothing usually runs in prison except the sheer power of the state and its control over those it holds. Yet, in India, that same power has allowed caste-based segregation and discrimination to persist within prison walls, reflecting the societal inequalities that should have no place in such a controlled environment.
This raises a fundamental question: if the Indian state, with all its authority in prisons, cannot rid its most controlled spaces of caste prejudice—even in its two policies of Model Prisons Manual, 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023—how can we expect it to challenge these same divisions in the open society, where its influence is far more diffuse? If state power is supposed to be strongest in prison and yet fails to enforce the principle of equality, what does that say about its ability—or willingness—to confront caste-based discrimination beyond those walls?
The judgement may be read here
(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)
Related:
More 90k undertrials in UP prisons with 24% SCs, 5% ST and 46% OBC: MHA
Why Judiciary and Executive must heed President Murmu’s serious concerns on prisoners’ rights