SC Strike Down ‘Casteist’ Provisions in India’s Prison Manuals | 12 Oct 2024

Source: TH

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that caste-based division of labour in prisons is “unconstitutional,” marking a key step towards eliminating institutional biases in India’s correctional system.  

• The SC invalidated several provisions in State prison manuals that upheld caste distinctions, declaring them a violation of prisoners' fundamental rights.

How do Prison Manuals Reinforce Colonial Stereotypes?

• Colonial Stereotypes in Prisons: 
  • Colonial Legacy: The now-repealed Criminal Tribes Act, 1871, allowed the British colonial regime to label certain marginalised communities as "criminal tribes," based on the false stereotype that they were "born criminals." 
  • Denotified Tribes: After the Act's repeal, these communities were reclassified as "denotified tribes." However, prison manuals continued to categorize them as "habitual offenders" despite no convictions. Example: 
    • West Bengal Jail Code: The court highlighted Rule 404 of the West Bengal Jail Code, which states that a convict overseer may only be appointed as a night guard if they do not belong to tribes considered to have a "strong natural tendency to escape," such as wandering tribes. 
    • Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala Prison Manuals: These manuals define "habitual criminals" as those who, by "habit," engage in crimes like robbery, housebreaking, theft, forgery, or extortion—even without prior convictions. 
    • Restrictions on Labour: In Andhra Pradesh, members of "wandering or criminal tribes" are equated with individuals of "bad or dangerous character" or those who have escaped custody. As a result, they are barred from being employed in labor outside prison walls. 
  • Perpetuation of Discrimination: The court observed that this continued classification reinforces colonial-era caste-based discrimination, worsening the social and economic marginalisation of these groups. 
• Examples of Caste Based Discrimination in Prisons: 
  • Tamil Nadu Prison: The segregation of Thevars, Nadars, and Pallars into separate sections at the Palayamkottai Central Jail in Tamil Nadu was a caste-based segregation of barracks. 
  • Rajasthan Prison: The Rajasthan Prison Rules, 1951, assigned latrine duties to the "Mehtar" caste, a Scheduled Caste community, while Brahmins or high-caste Hindu prisoners were placed in kitchens. 

How are Fundamental Rights of Prisoners Violated? 

• Caste Classification Limitation: The Supreme Court emphasised that caste can only be used as a classification criterion if it benefits victims of caste discrimination. Eg.  Caste based affirmative action (reservation). 
  • Segregating prisoners based on caste reinforces caste differences and animosity, should be eliminated. 
  • The prison manuals failed to serve this purpose and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. 
• Direct and Indirect Discrimination: The SC highlighted both direct and indirect discrimination against marginalized communities.  
  • Assigning cleaning and sweeping jobs to lower castes, while allowing higher castes to perform tasks like cooking, is a clear example of direct discrimination under Article 15(1). 
  • The allocating certain tasks to these communities based on traditional roles, rather than offering them more skilled or dignified work, results in indirect discrimination. 
• Violation of Equality: Differentiating inmates based on “habit,” “custom,” “superior mode of living,” or “natural tendency to escape” undermines the principles of substantive equality. 
  • The SC highlighted prison rules that mandate food be cooked by a “suitable caste” or assign “menial duties” to certain communities, classifying these practices as untouchability, which is prohibited under Article 17. 
• Right to Life and Dignity: The court underscored that prison rules restricting the reformation of marginalised prisoners violate their right to life and deprive them of dignity and equal treatment, further marginalizing them. 

What were the Directives Issued by SC? 

• Amend Prison Manuals: All States and Union Territories were ordered to revise their prison manuals and rules within three months to eliminate discriminatory practices. 
• Removal of Caste References: The court mandated the removal of the “caste column” and any references to caste from the registers of undertrials and convicts maintained in prisons. 
• Issues in Model Prison Manual and Act: The Union government’s Model Prison Manual, 2016, and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, were flagged for shortcomings such as caste discrimination. 
  • The 2016 manual was particularly criticized for its vague definition of “habitual offender,” allowing States to perpetuate stereotypes against denotified tribes. 
  • The court ordered that reforms be made to both the 2016 and 2023 Act within three months. 
• Compliance Monitoring: District legal services authorities and boards of visitors were tasked with conducting regular inspections to ensure compliance with these directives. 
• Police Instructions: Police authorities were instructed not to arbitrarily arrest members of denotified tribes, ensuring adherence to guidelines established in previous Supreme Court rulings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's recent ruling to abolish these discriminatory practices marks a significant step towards achieving substantive equality in prisons. By mandating the removal of caste references, revising outdated definitions, and addressing biases against marginalised communities, the court has reinforced the importance of dignity, fairness, and reform for all prisoners. This decision paves the way for a more just and inclusive correctional framework in India.