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”.
Analysis of Supreme Court
The Supreme Court said,
Several provisions of different Prison Manuals impose a restriction on labour of certain communities. That is, these communities are allowed to undertake only one kind of labour. “Menial” jobs are prescribed to be performed by those communities who have been “accustomed” to performing such duties. The language used in such Manuals/Rules is rooted in a caste-based societal structure, where traditionally, certain communities were relegated to tasks considered impure or inferior, such as cleaning, manual scavenging, or other forms of servitude.
Rule 289 of the Prison Manual of Uttar Pradesh provides that a convict “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”.
Rule 741 of the West Bengal Prison Manual provides “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 Mehther 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 36 of the Madhya Pradesh Jail Manual 1987 provides, “While latrine parade is being carried out, the mehtars attached to each latrine shall be present. The Mehtars shall empty the small receptacles into large iron drums and replace the receptacles after having cleaned them”.
Rule 563 provides, “The cook shall be of non-habitual class”.
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”.
Such provisions often lead to an unfair distribution of labour within the prison system, with persons from specific communities performing honourable tasks, while those from marginalized communities are forced into undesirable work. It perpetuates the idea that some individuals are inherently suited to low-status labour based solely on their birth, reinforcing deep-rooted caste inequalities.
The provision that “food” shall be cooked by prisoner-cooks of “suitable caste” empowers the jail officer to discriminate against the marginalized castes. At the same time, it takes away the opportunity from them to cook food. 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. Imposing labour or work, which is considered impure or low-grade, upon the members of marginalized communities amounts to “forced labour” under Article 23.
The Court in Sunil Batra (II)[1] had also held that “degrading labour” cannot be forced upon prisoners. 193 Being forced to undertake the menial tasks simply because of their caste background robs prisoners of the element of choice that other prisoners enjoy. Forcing marginalized caste inmates to perform tasks like cleaning latrines or sweeping, without providing them any choice in the matter and based purely on their caste, constitutes a form of coercion.
These prison rules assign them degrading labour that other inmates are not required to perform. Prisoners from lower castes are systematically exploited and their vulnerability as marginalized individuals is used as justification for assigning them low-grade tasks.
This type of labour assignment, based on their caste, cannot be classified as voluntary. Forcing the members of oppressed castes to selectively perform menial jobs amounts to forced labour under Article 23.
Dr Ambedkar had articulated that the socio economic situation of oppressed communities should not be used to exploit their labour. Article 23 strikes at this philosophy. The said article is not a caste-ignorant provision, but a caste-conscious provision.
Article 23 was incorporated into the Constitution to protect the members of oppressed castes from exploitative practices, where their labour is taken advantage of, and without any adequate return. This is evident from the Constituent Assembly Debates. 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. 196 We therefore find that the impugned provisions are violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23.
Reference
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024)
[1] 1979 INSC 271