Caste in jail

The most notable aspect of the Supreme Court ruling prohibiting caste-based discrimination in the treatment of prisoners is that it required a judgment from the highest court to end colonial practices and systems in prisons. While the Court has dealt elaborately with specific rules in the jail manuals of various States and the way in which caste-based hierarchy plays a role in allocation of duties, classification of prisoners, and the treatment of certain social groups as “habitual offenders”, it is quite remarkable that prison authorities and State governments had done so little about these aspects since independence. It is as if the prison system has been out of the reach of the core philosophy of the Constitution: the ushering in of an equal society, the ending of all forms of discrimination, the prohibition of untouchability in any form, and the abolition of forced labour and exploitation. Responding to journalist Sukanya Shantha’s writ petition, the Court has analysed the controversial rules and practices in jails in the backdrop of these constitutional objectives. It has ruled such provisions unconstitutional, and directed the revision of prison manuals within three months. Tracing the history of such rules and practices, the Court has noted, with much justification: “In line with their overall approach, the colonial administrators linked caste with prison administration of labour, food, and treatment of prisoners.”

Not only were menial work and supposedly polluting occupations allocated to prisoners from communities placed lower in the caste hierarchy, some were expected to carry out their “hereditary trades” within prisons, the Court found. On the other hand, the caste privileges of a few placed higher were preserved. Few can disagree with the observation that “the notion that an occupation is considered as ‘degrading or menial’ is an aspect of the caste system and untouchability.” The provision that food must be cooked by prisoners from a “suitable caste” and rules that referred to those from the “scavenger class” being assigned tasks such as manual scavenging, sweeping, and cleaning violated the constitutional prohibition against untouchability. Distribution of labour cannot be solely based on birth. Such rules violate the right to dignity and the right against forced labour and exploitation. The Court has also favoured doing away with vague definitions of ‘habitual offenders’, as they seem to ascribe criminal tendencies to whole tribes, even though the idea of notifying ‘criminal tribes’ has long been given up. It is time for State governments to respond to the verdict and revisit their laws and regulations related to prison administration and put an end to systemic discrimination in an institution that may treat any form of resistance as indiscipline.