Text

SUKANYA SHANTHA v. UNION OF INDIA

FACTS OF THE CASE:
Sukanya Shantha, a journalist, currently working at The Wire, published an article titled
“From segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law governs Indian Prison System”, which was
published on 10 December 2020. This article exposed the caste-based segregation in the
Indian prisons. She highlighted that the Model Prison Manual, 2016 which governs the prison
law in India, is a hub to caste-based segregation which discriminated the prisoners from one
another. It allowed for barrack segregation and also allocation of work based on castes.
On December 12, 2023, Sukanya filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court
challenging the various state prison manuals and rules which clearly discriminated the
prisoners based on their castes. She also contended that the prison rules labeled the
Denotified and Nomadic Tribe (DNT) as ‘habitual offenders’ which is a colonial lexicon. She
alleged that the various Prison Manuals and rules infringed Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23 of
the Constitution of India.

ISSUES INVOLVED:
1. Whether the caste-based discriminatory provisions in the various state prison manuals
violate Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23 of the Constitution?
2. Whether the Model Prisons Manual, 2016 deals with caste discrimination?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:
The petitioner argued that there were various discriminatory provisions in the various state
prison manuals that directly and indirectly violated the prisoners’ fundamental rights and
were unconstitutional. The petition pointed out that the prisoners were accommodated
differently in the prison differentiating them on the basis of their caste. The prisoners were
allocated tasks based on their caste, denying them the opportunity to develop their skills.
Certain castes were only required to cook and others clean, which is a clear indication of how
the prisoners were treated inside the prison. The petitioner also pointed out that certain
marginalized castes were denied basic amenities like food, water, medical treatment etc.
solely because they belonged to such marginalized community. The petitioner also asks for
the deletion of “caste” columns from the prison registers.
The petitioner contended that these discrimination inside the prisons based on the prison
manuals and rules were unconstitutional and violated the principle of equality and prohibition
of discrimination based on caste. She argued that the prison manuals stimulated
untouchability rather than prohibiting them. The provisions in the prison manuals were
against the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and also violated Article 23 of
the Constitution.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
On the other hand, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, the learned Additional Solicitor General, on behalf
of the respondent argued that the Model Prison Manual, 2016 was enacted explicitly
prohibiting all forms of caste and religion based discrimination. She argued that the Union
Government has already given clear information that there shall not be any forms of caste
discrimination inside the prison. She stated that the prisons come under the State List, thus
the responsibility to prevent such mishap belongs to the respective state governments.
Various states represented by their counsels argued that they were not following such
discriminatory practices within the prisons and had already given a proposal to delete or
amend such discriminatory provisions from their manuals.

DECISION OF THE COURT:
The Supreme Court in this landmark judgment held that there are caste-based discriminatory
provisions in the state prison manuals, which were unconstitutional and violated the
fundamental rights of the prisoners. The Court held that there is no place for discrimination
especially in the modern world and such practices are highly unacceptable. Caste-based
discrimination often undervalues the Constitution and the rights guaranteed by it, so such
discriminatory practices are to be eliminated at any cost.

The Court pointed out that the State Prison Manuals contained several outdated provisions
which were discriminatory in nature. The Court declared that several provisions violated
Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23 of the Constitution and ordered the various States and Union
Territories to revise their prison manuals. The Court declared the reference to “habitual
offenders” were unconstitutional and stated that reference to “habitual offenders” can only be
made based on the habitual offender legislation enacted by the state legislatures.
Another landmark change proclaimed by the Apex Court is that the columns seeking “castes”
shall be deleted from all the prison registers be that of under-trial prisoners or convicted
prisoners. The Denotified and Nomadic Tribes shall be prevented from arbitrary arrest by the
police officers. Additionally, the District Legal Services Authority and the Board of Visitors
formed under the Model Prison Manual, 2016 were asked to conduct regular inspections to
ensure that no caste-based discrimination is happening inside the Indian prisons. They were
asked to give reports of their inspection to the State Legal Services Authority, who shall
compile it and forward it to the National Legal Services Authority.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India is a significant step
towards eradicating caste and religion based discrimination within the Indian prison system.
It is footed on the constitutional values of equality, liberty and justice ensuring that dignity is
available to all irrespective of their caste, gender or social status. This judgment is not only
rooted in the constitutional values but also gives importance to systemic reforms within the
system. It shows that outdated provisions need to be revised eradicating discriminatory
provisions from the prison manuals. This judgment calls for the immediate repeal of such
discriminatory provisions and also suggests further steps to eradicate such practices in the
future.

Detail Information

Title

SUKANYA SHANTHA v. UNION OF INDIA

Court

: supreme court., 2024

Lenght/Sections/Order/Rules

-

Language

English

Case Number/Citation

2024 INSC 753

Matter(s)

-

Councels

Counsel for the Petitioner: Dr. S. Muralidhar (Senior Advocate), Ms. Disha Wadekar (Advocate)  Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati (Additional Solicitor General), Ms. Ashtha Sharma (Counsel for the State of West Bengal), Mr. Anuj Saxena (Advocate)

Statement of Responsibility

FARAH MUHAMMED RASHEED/GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE KOZHIKODE

See Also

File Attachment

Comments