The Supreme Court has struck down the provisions of state prison manuals that faciliated allotment of work to prisoners on the basis of their castes and classified denotified tribes as habitual offenders. Calling these practices “unconstitutional”, the court also laid down guidelines to prevent caste-based discrimination in prisons, Livelaw reported. 

The judgement by a bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra came in a petition filed by journalist Sukanya Shantha based on her report published in The Wire that highlighted caste-based discrimination practiced in jails across India.   

The top court directed states and union territories to revise their prison manuals and also directed the centre to make changes in its Model Prison Rules to address caste-based segregation. The court further also directed that the caste columns in prison registers must be deleted. 

The court held that assigning work like cleaning and sweeping particularly to the marginalised castes and assigning cooking to savarna caste prisoners is direct caste discrimination and a violation of Article 15.

The UP Prison Manual provisions said that a person going under simple imprisonment need not be given menial work unless their caste is used to do such jobs, while the Rajasthan Prison Manual referred to denotified tribes as habitual offenders. The Petition highlighted identical discriminatory laws within the state prison manuals of 13 states including Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, Punjab, Bihar, and Maharashtra.

The top court said, “These are aspects of untouchability which cannot be permitted… segregating prisoners on the basis of caste will reinforce caste discrimination. Not providing dignity to prisoners is a relic of the colonial system. Even prisoners are entitled to the right to dignity. They are to be treated humanely and without cruelty.”

The CJI also praised Shantha and thanked her “for writing that well-written piece”. “It highlights the power of citizens, they write well-researched articles and lead the matters to this court.”