Image for representation.
| Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto
On October 3, the Supreme Court in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024) reaffirmed the principle of non-discrimination in Indian prisons. The rules in jail manuals segregating prisoners based on caste was at the heart of this challenge. They were struck down for perpetuating caste discrimination and violating the fundamental rights of prisoners. Previously too, courts have often set aside prison rules that classified prisoners and treated them differently. Where the basis was either irrational, arbitrary, or a prohibited ground, it could not withstand the scrutiny of the equality code under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
EXPLAINED | Why did the Supreme Court strike down ‘casteist’ provisions in India’s prison manuals?
No arbitrary segregation
A distinction based on social status of prisoners was dealt with by the Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980). The Punjab Police Rules distinguished under-trial prisoners as ‘better class’ and ‘ordinary’. Only the ‘better class’ were exempted from wearing handcuffs. The Court reasoned that it was completely irrational for the state to assume that an indigent prisoner was more dangerous to the society than an affluent one. Economic and social considerations could not be the basis for classifying prisoners for the purposes of handcuffs. The provisions were held to be unconstitutional.
The Bombay High Court in Inacio Manuel Miranda v. State (1988) was faced with a different type of segregation affecting the prisoners’ right to write in prison. The Goa, Daman and Diu Prisoners Rules treated prisoners differently for writing welfare letters. ‘Class-I prisoners’ could write four letters per month, but ‘Class-II prisoners’ could only write two. This was held unreasonable and discriminatory, affecting the convict’s right to be treated equally in their freedom of expression. The Court followed its previous decision in Madhukar Bhagwan Jambhale v. State of Maharashtra (1984) where a prohibition on writing letters to co-prisoners, imposed by the Maharashtra Prison Rules, was struck down as having no logical basis and unduly inhibiting the prisoners’ constitutional rights.
A principle that resonated with the Court was that the prison itself could not strip the prisoners of rights they would otherwise be entitled to. Non-discrimination was one such right. The most recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sukanya Shantha brought about the starkest case of prison segregation. Here, caste hierarchy was the basis of classification for labour inside prisons. This meant that only prisoners of certain ‘marginalised castes’ were given cleaning and sweeping jobs, and others were given jobs like cooking. The State Prison Rules stated that these castes were “accustomed to performing such duties”. This classification had no connection with the individual ability or qualification of the prisoner and did not aid reformation. It perpetuated caste identity and prevented an equal opportunity to reform. The State Prison Rules and similar executive decisions were therefore set aside as discriminatory under Articles 14 and 15, with directions to the States to undertake amends.
The way forward
In another case, three petitions came before the Calcutta High Court, which were decided together in August 2012 (Gaur Narayan Chakraborty and Others). The main issue before the Court was whether Maoists who were waging a war against the state using arms, and who were charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and other special statutes, could be treated as political prisoners. The trial court had rejected this demand of the petitioners in accordance with the West Bengal Correctional Services (WBCS) Act, 1992, on the premise that they were members of a banned terrorist organisation, and their activities were not for the common good of the people, but for the revolution with arms.
However, the High Court, after discussing municipal and international viewpoints on the political offences and interpreting the WBCS Act on the classification of prisoners, reached the conclusion that “the believers of any kind of political movement are to be acknowledged as political prisoners and thus, it cannot be held that those who participate in unlawful activities cannot be recognised as political prisoners”.
Though the Supreme Court did not have occasion to decide the special leave petition arising from this decision on merit, the Calcutta High Court’s judgment is significant for highlighting a similar right of prisoners to be treated in a dignified manner.
EDITORIAL | Caste in jail: On discrimination in prisons
The High Court noticed that a person classified as a political prisoner is entitled to a few amenities, such as a chair, table, light, iron cot, mattress, pillow, blanket, and mirror. He is entitled to cooking, services of a barber, writing material, and a newspaper, and is also permitted to receive books and periodicals from his relatives. These facilities are a part of the basic human rights to which every prisoner ought to be entitled. The Court said these amenities should not be restricted to political prisoners. It suggested that the state administration re-look into the classification of prisoners and provide basic amenities to all. A slight improvement in the living conditions of prisoners in itself would erode the classification which the WBCS Act acknowledges.
While the Supreme Court’s recent judgment did away with caste discrimination inside prisons, incorporating basic amenities in prisons by suitably amending the Model Prison Manual 2016 will not only blur other distinctions, but will also ensure a minimum dignified life inside prisons.
R.K. Vij is a former Indian Police Service officer. Views are personal. Shivani Vij is a Lawyer practising in Delhi.
Published – November 12, 2024 01:08 am IST
