The question was answered by Supreme Court in the case of ‘Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024)’, when the petitioner, Sukanya Shantha, a journalist, who wrote an article “From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System”, which was published on 10 December 2020, presented the petition against this classification.
The article highlighted caste-based discrimination in the prisons in the country. The petitioner sought directions for repeal of the offending provisions in State prison manuals.
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. It was 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”.
The Analysis of Supreme Court on this Specific Question
The court said,
The petitioner has averred that the Prison Manuals violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India in so far as they privilege a particular section of the society based entirely on its caste identity. They cast disparate burdens on prisoners based on their caste-identity.
A valid classification under Article 14 presupposes a definite yardstick to distinguish the classes created, and the difference must be real, pertinent and discernible.[1] The State is free to recognise degrees of harm as long as the basis of classification is not arbitrary, artificial, or evasive. The line between the two classes must be clear and not illusory, vague, and indeterminate.
The impugned rules are challenged on the ground that first, they directly identify caste as a means to allocate intramural labour, food-duties; second, by using vague terms such as “suitable caste” or “superior method of living” and similar terms, they tend to advantage the so-called higher castes; and third, they target the members of denotified tribes.
Caste cannot be a ground of discrimination against members of marginalised castes
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.
In the context of prisons, valid classification must be a functional classification.[2] The classification of prisoners has been considered both from the point of view of security and discipline as well as reform and rehabilitation.[3] 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.[4]
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”.[5] 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.
No caste-based segregation can be allowed in Prisons
The petitioner’s counsel have brought to the notice the observations made by the Madras High Court in C. Arul v. The Secretary to Government.[6] One of the prayers in the writ petition was “not to discriminate the prisoners on the basis of the caste and forbearing the jail authority from confining Palayamkottai prison inmates on caste basis”. The writ petition was not entertained, as the High Court accepted the explanation of the State government that “the inmates belonging to different castes are housed in different blocks, in order to avoid any community clash, which is prevailing common in Tirunelveli and Tuticorin Districts”.
It was also noted that “there is rivalry between two groups on account of caste feeling, which is regular in the District and in order to avoid any untoward incident and put an end to such rivalry, the Prison Authority is compelled to house the inmates of different communities in different blocks”.
We cannot agree with the position taken by the High Court. It is the responsibility of the prison administration to maintain discipline inside the prison without resorting to extreme measures that promote caste-based segregation. Adopting the logic accepted by the High Court is similar to the argument which was given in the United States to legalize race-based segregation: separate but equal.[7]
Such a philosophy has no place under the Indian Constitution. Even if there is rivalry between individuals of two groups, it does not require segregating the groups permanently. Discipline cannot be secured at the altar of violation of fundamental rights and correctional needs of inmates. The prison authorities ought to be able to tackle perceived threats to discipline by means that are not rights-effacing and inherently discriminatory.
Furthermore, 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 do not serve as an intelligible differentia that can be used to demarcate one class of prisoners from the other. These terms have resultantly been used to target individuals from marginalized castes and denotified tribes.
The objective of classification for labour for treatment and for conferment of entitlements such as remissions has to be maximisation of the reformatory potential of prisons. Such classification should be based solely on the correctional needs of the individual prisoner. An objective assessment of these needs prior to the classification is a constitutional imperative. Only such classification that proceeds from an objective inquiry of factors such as work aptitude, accommodation needs, and special medical and psychological needs of the prisoner would pass constitutional muster.
Classification based on caste reduces the individual prisoner to a group identity and does not leave room for an objective assessment of their correctional needs. Their reformation is stultified by the burdens of their group-identity and thereby, their presumed ability to discharge stereotypical occupational tasks. This classification bears no nexus with individual qualifications, abilities and needs. Such a classification does not aid reformation. It rather effaces the prisoner’s individuality and deprives them of individualised assessment of their correctional needs. Such classification bears no rational nexus with either prison discipline or prison reform.
It is also opposed to substantive equality within prisoners as a class as it deprives some of them of equal opportunity to be assessed for their correctional needs, and consequently, opportunity to reform. The classification on obsolete understanding of caste, based on pre constitutional legislations and practices, lacks a rational nexus with the correctional objectives of classification in prisons.
Thus, 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.
(iii) The discriminatory manuals
On a reading of the impugned provisions, it is clear that the provisions discriminate against marginalized castes and act to the advantage of certain castes. By assigning cleaning and sweeping work to the marginalized castes, while allowing the high castes to do cooking, the Manuals directly discriminate. This is an instance of direct discrimination under Article 15(1).
The manuals/rules suffer from indirect discrimination by using broad terms which act to the disadvantage of the marginalized castes. Phrases such as “menial” jobs to be performed by castes “accustomed to perform such duties” may appear to be facially neutral, but refer to marginalized communities, given the history of systemic discrimination against them. Such indirect usages of phrases, which target the so called ‘lower castes’, cannot be permitted in our constitutional framework. The phrases, though neutral on their face, carry an embedded bias that disadvantages marginalized communities by reinforcing historical patterns of labour based on caste.
Even if caste is not explicitly mentioned, phrases like “menial” and “accustomed” indirectly uphold traditional caste roles. These provisions disproportionately harm marginalized castes, perpetuate caste-based labour divisions and reinforce social hierarchies.
The manuals/rules are also based on and reinforce stereotypes against the marginalized castes. These stereotypes not only demean and stigmatize marginalized communities but also serve to maintain and legitimize a social hierarchy that goes against the constitutional values of equality. The persistence of such associations in official documents like the Manuals/Rules normalizes the idea that these tasks are somehow natural for marginalized communities, reinforcing harmful societal hierarchies.
By assigning specific types of work to marginalized castes based on their supposed “customary” roles, the Manuals perpetuate the stereotype that people from these communities are either incapable of or unfit for more skilled, dignified, or intellectual work.
The manuals/rules also reinforce stereotypes against denotified tribes. Rule 404 of the West Bengal Manual provides that a convict overseer may be appointed to be a night guard provided that “he does not belong to any class that may have a strong natural tendency to escape, such as men of wandering tribes”.
The Madhya Pradesh Manual permits the classification of habitual and non-habitual criminals, where habitual criminals are described as someone who “is by habit member of a gang of dacoits, or of thieves or a dealer in slaves or in stolen property”, even if no previous conviction has been proved. Furthermore, any member of a denotified tribe may be treated as a habitual criminal, subject to the discretion of the State Government.
Similarly, Rule 217 of the Andhra Pradesh Manual, Rule 219 of the Tamil Nadu Manual, and Rule 201 of the Kerala Manual classify as “habitual criminals” those who are by “habit” a “robber, housebreaker, dacoit, thief or receiver of stolen property” or that he “habitually commits extortion, cheating, counterfeiting coin, currency notes or stamps or forgery”, even if “no previous conviction has been proved, that he is by habit a member of a gang of dacoits, or of thieves or a dealer in stolen property”.
The Andhra Manual also paints “a member of a wandering or criminal tribe” with the same brush of being “a bad or dangerous character, or has, at any time, escaped of attempted to escape from lawful custody”, and prohibits their employment on any labour outside the walls of the prison, or to be permitted to pass out of the prison for employment of the purpose of being so employed.
The Manual also describes “non-habitual prisoners of good character” as someone who “by social status, education and habit of life have been accustomed to a superior mode of living”. Conversely, habitual prisoners are accustomed to an inferior mode of living.
The Odisha Manual and Rajasthan Manual also prohibit employment on extramural work of “Prisoners who have shown, or are likely to have, a strong inclination to escape or are members of a wandering or criminal tribe”.
The Odisha Rules and Tamil Nadu Rules prescribe the separation of habitual offenders from other prisoners.
The Maharashtra Rules state that “Habitual women prisoners; prostitutes and procuress and young women prisoners shall be segregated.”
The tendency to treat members of denotified members as habitual offenders should be deprecated
The tendency to treat members of denotified tribes as habitual to crime or having bad character reinforces a stereotype, which excludes them from meaningful participation in social life. When such stereotypes become a part of the legal framework, they legitimize discrimination against these communities. Members of the denotified tribes have faced the brunt of colonial caste-based undertones of discriminating against them, and the prison Manuals are reaffirming the same discrimination.
Discrimination against denotified tribes is prohibited under the ground of “caste” in Article 15(1), as the colonial regime considered them as belonging to separate hereditary castes.
Preserving the caste-based manuals cements case-based prejudice
Rule 289(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Manual provides:
“A convict sentenced to simple imprisonment,… shall not be called upon to perform duties of a degrading or menial character unless he belongs to a class or community accustomed to perform such duties; but may be required to carry water for his own use provided he belongs to the class of society the members of which are accustomed to perform such duties in their own homes.”
Rule 158 states:
“Remission to convicts on scavenging duty – Subject to good work and conduct in jail, convicts of the scavenger class working as scavengers in jails…”
Rule 694 of West Bengal Manual provides: “… Interference with genuine religious practices or caste prejudices of prisoners should be avoided”.
Rule 741 states: “Food shall be cooked and carried to the cells by prisoner-cooks of suitable caste, under the superintendence of a jail officer…”
Rule 793 provides: “The barber should belong to the A class. Sweepers should be chosen from the Mether or Hari caste, also from the Chandal or other castes, if by the custom of the district they perform similar work when free, or from any caste if the prisoner volunteers to do the work.”
Rule 1117 states: “Any prisoner in a jail who is of so high a caste 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.”
Rule 36 of the Madhya Pradesh manual states: “While the latrine parade is being carried out, the mehtars attached to each latrine shall be present, and shall call the attention of the convict overseer to any prisoner who does not cover up his dejecta with dry earth. The mehtars shall empty the contents of the small receptacle into large iron drums and replace the receptacles in the latrine after having cleaned them.”
Rule 26.69 of the Himachal Pradesh Manual states, “If there are no female of suitable caste for conservancy work, paid-sweepers shall be taken into the enclosure in charge of a warder and under conditions laid down in paragraph 214”.
The notion that an occupation is considered as “degrading or menial” is an aspect of the caste system and untouchability. The caste system rigidly assigns certain tasks to specific communities based on birth, with the lowest castes, being relegated to tasks considered impure or unclean, such as manual scavenging, cleaning, and other forms of physical labour. That a person belonging to such a community is accustomed to performing menial tasks is a mandate of the caste system.
Similarly, the reference to “scavenger class” is a practice of the caste system and untouchability. No social group is born as a “scavenger class”. They are forced to undertake certain jobs that are considered ‘menial’ and polluting based on the notions of birth-based purity and pollution.
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.
As discussed, prison manuals allot tasks of a barber to individuals from a certain caste, while sweeping work is allowed to Mehtar/Hari/Chandal or similar castes. It is also provided that work shall be allotted on the basis of “attitude and so far as may be practicable with due regard to his previous habits.” This is a caste-based delegation of work based on the perceptions of the caste system that certain castes are meant to do jobs of “sweeping”.
The rule 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.
Rule 440 of the Andhra Pradesh Manual states: “The prison tasks including conservancy work shall be allotted at the discretion of the Superintendent with due regard to capacity of the prisoner, his education, intelligence and attitude andso far as may be practicable with due regard to his previous habits.”
Rule 784 of the Odisha Manual states, “Prisoners who have shown, or are likely to have, a strong inclination to escape or are members of a wandering or criminal tribe, even though eligible, shall not be employed on extramural work.”
Rule 201 of Kerala Manual defines “habitual criminals” as follows:
“(1) any person convicted of an offence punishable under Chapters XII, XVII and XVIII of the Indian Penal Code, whose facts of the present case, show that he is by habit a robber, house breaker, dacoit, thief or receiver of stolen property or that he habitually commits extortion, cheating, counterfeiting coin, currency notes or stamps or forgery”;
“(4) any person convicted of any of the offence specified in (i) above when it appears from the facts of the case, even though no previous conviction has been proved, that he is by habit a member of a gang of dacoit, on of thieves or a dealer in slaves or in stolen property”;
“(5) any person of a Criminal tribe subject to the discretion of the Government.”
The provisions that “men of wandering tribes” or “criminal tribes” have a “strong natural tendency to escape” or are by “habit” accustomed to theft reflects a stereotype that has its basis in the colonial understanding of India’s caste system. 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.
Criminality is not associated with social status
The provision that a “non-habitual” prisoner is “by social status” and “habit of life… accustomed to a superior mode of living” is another caste-based construct. This hierarchical view of social status plays into the caste-based division of labour and morality that has long been entrenched in Indian society. While those from higher castes or classes were perceived as refined and deserving of more lenient treatment (even within the colonial criminal justice system), those from lower castes or marginalized communities were viewed as having a natural tendency towards criminality or immorality.
This was not only an injustice but also reinforced existing power structures, ensuring that marginalized groups were trapped in cycles of poverty and discrimination, unable to transcend the stigmatization they faced.
The right to overcome caste prejudices under Article 21
The impugned rules foster the antiquated notions of fitness of a particular community for a certain designated job. These rules reinforce occupational immobility of prisoners who belong to certain castes. For instance, rules assigning sweeping work which stipulate that “sweepers shall be chosen from the Mehtar or Hari caste, also from the Chandal or other low castes, if by the custom of the district they perform similar work when free, or from the caste if the prisoner volunteers to do the work” designate the enumerated castes for the work in issue.
The three castes enumerated in the Rule are Scheduled Castes and have historically been compelled to do manual scavenging. The only link between the caste so designated and the work in question is their historical, caste-based link with the profession. It does not regard their work capacity, health, education, and ability, based on an individualised assessment of the individual. Effectively, such rules obviate any inquiry into the correctional needs of the inmate and how, if at all they may be furthered by the assignment of work.
Such rules are indifferent to the potential of the individual prisoner to reform. Such a state of affairs is entirely opposed to substantive equality, as it contributes to institutional discrimination, depriving inmates of an opportunity to reform, at par with the others over whom the pall of caste does not hang.
Article 21 envisages the growth of individual personality. Caste prejudices and discrimination hinder the growth of one’s personality. Therefore, Article 21 provides for the right to overcome caste barriers as a part of the right to life of individuals from marginalized communities. The protection provided by Article 21 can be seen as a constitutional guarantee that individuals from marginalized communities should have the freedom to break free from these traditional social restrictions.
It extends beyond mere survival to ensure that they can flourish in an environment of equality, respect, and dignity, without being subjected to caste-based discrimination which stifles their personal growth.
When caste prejudices manifest in institutional settings, such as prisons, they create further restrictions on the personal development and reformation of individuals from marginalized communities. 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.
Reference
Sunkanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024)
[1] Murthy Match Works v. Asst Collector of Central Excise, 1974 4 SCC 428
[2] Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail, 1978 INSC 149
[3] RK Kapoor Committee, pp. 157-160.
[4] Sunil Batra (I) v. Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 494
[5] Hiralal Mallick v. State of Bihar, (1977) 4 SCC 44
[6] W.P.(MD) No. 6587 of 2012 (Madras High Court, Order dated 28 October 2014)
[7] For a broader history, see Michael Klarman, Unfinished Business: Racial Equality in American History, Oxford
University Press (2007).