Author: Pushpa Prasad, Faculty of Law, Delhi University
INTRODUCTION
Discrimination based on castes in India is a long-standing social issue, and its existence within institutions such as prisons introduces a considerable level of complexity. The prison system was intended to rehabilitate offenders, yet it has frequently faced criticism for reinforcing social inequalities, such as caste-based discrimination. The matter has garnered legal disputes based on infringements of constitutional rights, such as the “Right to Equality” Article 14, “Right to Freedom of Religion” Article 25, and the “Right to Life and Personal Liberty” Article 21 which applies to inmates.
The vision articulated by Dr. Ambedkar, Jaipal Singh Munda, H.J. Khandekar, and Dakshayani Velayudhan, among others, stresses that discrimination will not be tolerated in the nation. The Constitution imagines a society in which no individual has the right to feel greater than any other citizen. This perception of our past leaders appears to diminish with the continuous discrimination in prisons based on caste.
CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION
The founders’ goal of providing India with a shared future founded on the principles of equality, liberty, and fraternity is reflected in the Constitution. A more equitable and inclusive society where all citizens have the chance to prosper is required under the Constitution. The interpretation of the constitution emphasizes the necessity of reversing the colonial regime’s ideology, which was based on the idea that the individual should be subservient to the state. The Constitution aims to guarantee all of her citizens the ideals of a fair, caring, and humane life in the fight against colonial and pre-colonial ideology.
To ensure that every individual in a post-constitutional society has equal legal protection, the government must take proactive measures. Therefore, every conversation on the Constitution must adopt a thoughtful perspective.
THE CONSTITUTION OF EMANCIPATION, EQUALITY AND DIGNITY
The Constitution of India is a liberating document. On 26 January 1950, the Constitution abolished the legal status of caste-based discrimination, thus elevating the dignity of our marginalized groups. The Constitution represents the hopes of countless communities marginalized by caste, who envisioned a brighter future in a free India. The Constitution, by its mere presence, represented a social revolutionary declaration.
The section on fundamental rights includes the stipulation regarding equal opportunity, affirmative action, eradication of untouchability, freedom of speech and expression, right to life, and the ban on forced labor. This has been accomplished for specific purposes. This clause tackles the issue of Indian society that the Constitution’s creators sought to eradicate.
In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2019) 11 SCC 1, the Court articulated the Constitution’s anti-caste vision and the fight to transform an unjust social order. The struggle to rectify historical wrongs and to address fundamental injustices with essential rights. The Constitution of India serves as the ultimate source for both justice. The document outlines a moral path that citizens should follow to achieve the values of freedom, equality, brotherhood, and justice.
Article 14
“The State shall not deny to any person equal protection under the law or equal treatment before the laws within the territory of India,” as stated in Article 14. After the Constitution was enacted, the Court set forth the standards for assessing if laws infringed upon Article 14 in the Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India (1950) SCR 869 Constitutional Bench decision. Justice B.K. Mukherjee stated that a classification pursuant to Article 14 should never be created randomly; instead, it must consistently rely on a real and meaningful difference that has a fair and rational connection to the items classified.
A classification lacking a solid foundation should be considered invalid. The Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) INSC 652 recently addressed the permissibility of sub classification among Scheduled Castes under Article 14. A classification should be considered invalid if it occurs without substantial justification. In the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) INSC 652, the court recently examined if Article 14 allows for subclassification among the Scheduled Castes.
NON- DISCRIMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 15
Article 15 (1) places a binding duty on the State to refrain from discriminating against citizens based on various criteria, including caste. Article 15 (2) was enacted to expressly forbid the discrimination encountered by specific marginalized groups in obtaining public service resources. Historically, the so-called untouchable community was barred from accessing public resources like water tanks and reservoirs. This clause bears the distinct mark of Dr. Ambedkar, who persistently supported such a measure for many years. Article 15(2) not only forbids the State from engaging in discrimination but also limits citizens and private entities from discriminating against other citizens based on the grounds outlined in that section. In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala (2018) INSC 908, the court addressed the legitimacy of a regulation barring menstruating women aged 10 to 50 from entering a temple in Kerala due to tradition. The mentioned rule is affected by Article 15(1) since it discriminates against women solely on the grounds of their gender. In Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya 2020 INSC 198, a bench of two judges supported the assertions of women on Short Service Commissions in the Army to achieve equality with male counterparts in gaining Permanent Commissions.
Through the examination of the rulings, several anti-discrimination principles surfaced under Article 15 (1).
Discrimination can occur as either direct, indirect, or a combination of both.
Laws that appear neutral on the surface may negatively affect specific marginalized social groups.
Stereotypes can exacerbate discrimination directed at a marginalized social group.
The State has a duty to prevent discrimination towards marginalized social groups.
Laws that discriminate based on stereotypes and result in harm or disadvantage to a social group, whether directly or indirectly, are not allowed within the constitutional framework.
Courts must investigate the allegations of indirect discrimination and systemic discrimination.
THE PROHIBITION OF UNTOUCHABILITY IN ARTICLE 17
Dr. Ambedkar characterized the consequences of untouchability by stating, “the term untouchable encapsulates their miseries and hardships.” Untouchability has not only hindered the development of their personality but also obstructs their material prosperity. It has also denied them some civil rights…. The untouchable isn’t considered a citizen at all.
Untouchability and caste discrimination resulted in significant social and economic disadvantages, as well as cultural and educational stagnation for the untouchables. In Indian Young Association v. State of Kerala (2019) 11 SCC 1, it is stated that untouchability reflects the caste system and the associated ideas of purity and pollution, which Article 17 condemns.
ARTICLE 21: OF LIFE AND DIGNITY
Article 21 states that no individual shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. In Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration (1980), the court stressed that an individual in prison remains a human being and does not forfeit all human rights; thus, the State has a responsibility to address legitimate needs and demands. It was asserted that, according to the law, prisoners are considered individuals and not animals, and that courts must penalize the aberrant custodians of the prison system when they act irrationally and undermine the dignity of the human prisoner.
ARTICLE 23 : PROHIBITION OF FORCED LABOUR AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING
Article 23(1) offers actionable fundamental rights concerning social and economic exploitation. Its goal is to ban human trafficking, begar, and various types of forced work. The groundwork for Article 23 was established even before the debates in the Constituent Assembly. In his publication “States and Minorities” (1947), exploitative socio-economic practices may impede the right to lead a dignified life. In Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat (2020) 10 SCC 459, a challenge was raised against two notifications released by the Gujarat government under Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948 amid the COVID-19 pandemic. These notifications relieved factories from adhering to certain obligations that employers must meet for their employees. As per the notifications, all factories registered under the Act were relieved from several provisions concerning weekly hours, daily hours, and rest intervals, etc., for adult employees. In the assessment
It was determined that the government notification was beyond its legal authority and violated the fundamental rights of workers. It was asserted that the notices, by refusing humane working conditions and overtime pay mandated by law, violate the workers’ right to life and protections against forced labour guaranteed by Article 21 and 23 of the Constitution.
A HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATION IN PRE- COLONIAL ERA
The history of India has seen centuries of bias against the marginalized castes. Violence, discrimination, oppression, hatred, disdain, and degradation directed at these communities were commonplace. The caste system infiltrated itself through various means:
It was founded on a ranking of four caste-based classifications, with the Shudras positioned at the bottom tier.
The groups outside these four categories were regarded as untouchables.
The caste system regulated women’s sexuality and autonomy to preserve caste purity.
The caste system regarded specific caste and tribal groups as criminal professionals.
Punitive measures were enacted against individuals who breached the “caste law.”
CASTE DISCRIMINATION DURING COLONIAL INDIA
Numerous leaders championed the struggle against caste discrimination in colonial India. In his presentations to the Southborough Committee in 1919, Dr. Ambedkar emphasized the extreme social disabilities experienced by the untouchable. He explained that untouchability is a type of slavery and that it resulted in the denial of civil and political rights for the communities oppressed by the caste system.
Galanter also emphasized how British courts provided direct backing for caste discrimination in specific instances. Caste groups received strong backing from the courts in supporting their demands for priority and exclusivity. It constituted a criminal act for an individual from an excluded caste to intentionally defile a temple through their presence.
JURISPRUDENCE REGARDING SOCIAL PROTECTION IN INDIA AFTER INDEPENDENCE
Parliament passed laws to stop discrimination and abuses against the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale AIR 1993 SC 1126, Justice Ramaswamy observed that Parliament implemented the strict provisions of the PoA Act 1989 while the mandate of Article 17 was being violated without consequence, and acts of violence against Dalits and Tribes persisted relentlessly.
In a recent ruling in Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra 2019 INSC 305, the High Court upheld the conviction and death sentence of six defendants for the crimes of rape and murder. The Court had previously rejected their appeal. Nonetheless, in a review petition, the Court reinstated the appeal and exonerated all the defendants, concluding that they were wrongfully accused. Considering that the accused came from nomadic tribes, the Court observed that “there was an absence of a fair investigation and fair trial, highlighting the significant shortcomings of the investigating agency. As five of the defendants were imprisoned for 16 years due to wrongful accusations, and all were
HISTORY OF CASTE IN PRISON MANUALS
Caste was utilized as a basis for distinguishing between prisoners. The essence of the Manuals is evident from Rule 825 of the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual 1941, which stated that the Superintendent shall not impose the punishment of whipping on a superior class inmate without the approval of the State Government. Rule 719 stipulated that reasonable consideration should be given to the religious beliefs and caste sensitivities of prisoners in all matters, as long as it aligns with maintaining discipline.
Even post-independence, Rule 37 of the Rajasthan Prison Rules 1951 stated until recently that distinct containers must be supplied in all toilets for solid and liquid waste, and their use should be thoroughly explained to all inmates. The Mehtars will place at least 1 inch of dry earth into each container for solid waste, and every inmate must cover his waste with a scoop of dry earth after using the container. Regulation 67 stipulated that the chefs must belong to the non-habitual category. Any prisoner who is a Brahmin or from a high caste Hindu background qualifies to be a cook. Under no circumstances are individual criminal prisoners permitted to prepare their own meals.
These regulations classify prisoners of forced labour, which constitutes a legal violation, while granting privileges to a special group for cooking, creating discrimination against other inmates. The Constitution asserts that every individual is equal before the law. So, why does this discrimination exist among prisoners?
Numerous manuals emerged post-independence since prison law falls under the state list; every state possesses its own manuals. The 2003 Manual, 2016 Manual, and the Modern Prisons and Correctional Services Act of 2023 prohibit discrimination in kitchen management based on religion and ensure no preferential treatment for any caste; however, targeted individuals still include denotified tribes.
FAQS
What is the role of legal service authorities in prisons?
To guarantee that the basic rights of inmates are upheld, the role of legal services authorities is vital. In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979) 3 SCR acknowledged the entitlement to free legal services as a crucial element of a fair, reasonable, and just procedure under Article 21 for individuals charged with an offence. Every individual has a constitutional right to have legal representation. In the case of Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra 2012 INSC 357, the Court determined that the entitlement to legal aid arises from Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and must be rigorously upheld.
How discrimination had hindered the growth of citizens and how it hampered the overall development process?
Discrimination dampens the core essence of the human mind. It becomes immobilized because of persistent discrimination experienced by a community, and if the government fails to provide support, they spend their whole lives repressed and turn into a burden for society. If an individual lacks the right to live with dignity, he remains in constant fear, impacting his work efficiency. Furthermore, we observe that a community that is neglected and oppressed turns towards negative choices that contradict societal morals, ultimately punishing its own members by engaging in dreadful crimes, thus fostering a criminal mentality. The person who could benefit the nation is treated as a threat, and the entire government is focused on punishing him. To envision a thriving nation, its citizens must lead their lives with dignity, free from discrimination among individuals and the oppression of marginalized groups. Rather, every single person concerning the state contributes to the betterment of these individuals.
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTION
The problem of caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons highlights the entrenched social inequalities that persistently impact marginalized groups. The Supreme Court in its recent ruling of Sukanaya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors 2024 INSC 753 instructed the Union government to implement essential modifications by removing the caste column wherever it appears, and the police are mandated to adhere to the guidelines established in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) to prevent any arbitrary arrests of members of Denotified Tribes. Routine inspections conducted by DLSAs and the Board of Visitors established under the Model Prison Manual 2016 aim to determine if caste-based discrimination continues to occur within the prisons.
