Author: Hritika Singh, Gokhale Education Society Narhar Balwant Law College
To the point
This article talks about the recent judgment case law “ Sukanya Shanta vs Union of India, which was decided on 3 October 2024, while the case was a response to a PIL (Public interest litigation) which was filed by the journalist Sukanya Shanta, highlighted in the article “ From segregation to labour, Manu’s caste law governs the Indian prison.” The Supreme Court of India held that caste based structure that has been going on in Indian prisons is against the constitutional norms; moreover, it also violates the fundamental rights of an individual. According to Article 21, which states that every individual has the right to life and its purview, it is rational in nature as the right not to be treated or biased on caste basis is a part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution for persons who belong to a minority.
One could postulate that the court’s decision was based on discriminatory norms and the prohibition against the exercise of untouchability in India. In India, the caste system is a social exclusion and is discriminatory. And for the people who belong to the communities that are marginalised and are being set apart based on the caste, they are judged as impure and segregated from the mainstream society or the other class individuals. Therefore, in the colonial era, they were also considered as they were born criminals in the prison system and were called the criminal community.
On the other hand, Article 17 of the Indian Constitution abolished untouchability, but the societal perspective of caste-based discrimination persists everywhere.
Use of legal jargon:
1.Right to overcome caste prejudices, suggests a part of Article 21 of the Indian constitution where it includes this right along with other sub mentioned right under “Right to life”.
2. Suo moto: It is a Latin-derived term, which means an action initiated by the court on its own terms, or in other words, it is basically a judicial power where they can use their power to take up any matter on its own initiative.
3. Public interest litigation: In India, every individual is given a right where they can file an interest litigation in the court, specifically a High Court or a Supreme Court for a cause that interests the public and not them directly.
The proof:
The Supreme Court of India, in the case, challenged the provisions against the constitutional norms for violating articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23, and suggested that all states amend their prison manuals to make sure that this will not happen again. And suggested not put the ‘caste’ references in the register of the prison.
Now, one would ask how they could differentiate in prison when everyone lives in the same room. They discovered that marginalized prisoners were discriminated against while they were given work like cleaning and sweeping; on the other hand, others or higher caste were given work like cooking in the kitchen. Additionally, it acknowledged indirect discrimination that disproportionately affects vulnerable populations by using ostensibly neutral language like “menial” activities to be conducted by castes “accustomed to performing such duties.” According to the SCt, these regulations “perpetuate the stereotype that people from these communities are either incapable of or unfit for more skilled, dignified, or intellectual work” and “reinforce stereotypes against the marginalized castes.” Lastly, it claimed that terms like “menial” and “accustomed” disproportionately harm marginalized castes, perpetuate caste-based labour divisions, and reinforce social hierarchies,” even when caste is not specifically acknowledged.
The Supreme Court discovered that prison manuals have been following the norms from the colonial era, where the British used to discriminate between races, and the stereotype has been going on since then. The court noted that the manuals were kept to track and target the lower caste people, and target them on that basis, even if they were first-time criminals and were solely judged on the basis of their community. Which led them to feel excluded and violated, and they could not even participate meaningfully in social terms, which violated Article 15(1) of the Constitution.
The Court reasoned that labelling entire communities as intrinsically dishonest and designating them as “criminal by birth” amounts to untouchability. This is because it systematically marginalizes and excludes particular groups by attributing negative characteristics to them depending on their identification. This view is especially significant since the Court acknowledged that untouchability encompasses any system that institutionalizes the dehumanization and exclusion of populations based on their identity, not just traditional caste-based practices. The Supreme Court also emphasized how hierarchical perceptions of “superior modes of living” in jail classifications promote caste-based power systems and imprison underprivileged populations in discriminatory cycles.
The Supreme Court decided that Article 21 of the constitution involves the right to overcome caste prejudices because it is clearly a right mentioned for an individual over their life.
Moreover, while they implied that the discrimination done based on caste is not solely in the prison but even at work place or anywhere, it discourages the personal growth of an individual
Abstract
The judgment case was a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. The judgment rules on caste-based segregation and labour practices in Indian prisons, which were found to be unconstitutional. The petition was challenged under Article 32 of the Constitution. As we know, the petition was filed by a journalist who highlighted the practices that have been going on in the Indian prisons, where the prisoners were allocated work on the basis of caste, where the lower caste people were allocated menial work like housing or cleaning, and others were allocated work different from them, which clearly showcase the practice of discrimination and untouchability.
To which the court replied and made a strict amendment that this sort of practice should be abolished as it is against the constitutional right of an individual, and it also affects them on a personal level.
Case Law
Sukanya Shantha V/S Union of India.
Conclusion
However, the following case suggests that it treat the Constitution as a transformative charter, which has worked to dismantle the historical embed stereotype exercises inside the institution like prisons.
It remains to be seen, nevertheless, how this view is applied and decided. This interpretation has the ability to establish a progressive approach to constitutional law with broad implications for resolving ingrained societal concerns in India if it is applied objectively rather than subjectively. Otherwise, this constitutional interpretation’s possibilities would be constrained. Such a restrictive interpretation might leave other disadvantaged groups without comparable constitutional safeguards by creating an artificial division between various types of prejudice and discrimination.
FAQS
What was the issue that was challenged in the judgment case?
Answer: The public interest litigation was filed by a journalist who highlighted the issue of caste discrimination in the prison system and how work was decided based on menial tasks and other tasks, which affected their personal growth and violated the constitutional norms of the right to life. Hence, the court decided to amend and ruled that each state prison should remove the factor that has been leading to the issue, which was the manual which used to be maintained in the prison.
What provision did the court use to come to the conclusion of this?
Answer: By applying Article 14 of the constitution, the court came to a conclusion that it underlines the doctrine of reasonable classification and intelligible criteria, such as custom and natural aspects of escaping.
How does the judgment expand the scope of Article 17 of the Constitution?
Answer: The court gave a meaningful interpretation to Article 17, concluding that coercing certain communities into degrading as lower or outcast, and segregating them from the other individuals, which comes under the protection of the Civil Rights Acts 1955, beyond the practices that have been going on from the historical period.
What remedies or amendments did the court make through the judgment?
Answer: The court ordered the state prison to remove the manual where it registers their caste, which will lead to the protection of that person. The revised Model Prison Manual was enacted in 2016, and the Act of 2023.
