Introduction
The Supreme Court in its recent decision in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India has given guidelines to the governments (both central and State) to amend their prison manuals and rules so that it doesn’t include any provision which promotes caste based discrimination. Also, directions were also given to amend the Model Prisons Rule to bring them in conformity with constitutional principles.
This case not only serves as a landmark case to carve out the practice of discrimination and untouchability from Indian society but also highlights that how even after around seventy five years of Independence, this barbaric and inhumane practice of caste based discrimination has been haunting the Indian Society.
The case reflects that how prisoners are discriminated under various State’s prisoner’s rules on the basis of caste and every service in prisoners including cooking, cleansing, barbering, monitoring is based upon caste. The manual scavenging is still practiced in prisoners and specifically done by lower caste people, according to the respective state’s prisoner’s rules.
Prison as State Subject
It is to be noted that the concept of separation of powers divides the working of legislative, executive and judiciary. According to this, the judiciary only prescribes the punishment and the other duties related to the keeping of prisoners, facilities to be provided like medical and other, serving of food to them, hygiene and other related things, deciding the number of prisons are left to the government. Also, this falls under the State list of Seventh Schedule, therefore, each State government has their separate prison rules.
Facts
The facts which gave the basis for the above mentioned judgment are as follows-
- This issue of inhumane treatment of prisoners and the division of labor on the basis of caste was highlighted by Sukanya Santha, a journalist and on the basis of that a Public Interest Litigation was filed. It was argued by that in prisons the inmates are discriminated on the basis of their caste and various state’s prison rules are discriminatory and violate Article 14, 15, 17, 23 and 21 of the Constitution.
- The Supreme Court took the cognizance of the case and accordingly issued various guidelines and directions to the Government to eliminate all the prisons rules which promote caste based discrimination.
Observations made by the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court held that it is very unfortunate that caste based discrimination still continue to exist in India. In fact, supported by the government itself.
- The argument that division of labor in prisons on the basis of caste doesn’t violate Article 14 and 15 as these Articles itself allow some form of classification was vehemently rejected by the Supreme Court.
- Such prison rules which prescribes rules according to which services in prisoners including cooking, cleansing, barbering, monitoring are based upon caste violate Article 14. Because though Article 14 which provides Right to Equality allows some form of classification, but that classification must fulfill some requirements. It has already been made clear at a number of occasions that for a valid classification, it must be based upon intelligible differentia i.e. the classification must not look arbitrary and it must be of such a nature that it promotes the purpose for which the classification is done.
- The present form of classification of prisoners on the basis of caste don’t fulfill any kind of purpose that is why it violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Moreover, Article 15 is violated. The Supreme Court illustrated that how Indian Constitution completely abhors the idea of any sort of classification based upon religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Various instances like Secretary Minister of Defence v.Babita Punia(2020) ( to hold that women are equally entitled to permanent commission in Indian army) and Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) ( to legalize the entry of women in Sabrimala Temple) and other related example were given to highlight that how Indian Constitution is completely intolerant towards any sort of discrimination. Therefore, prison rules prima facie violate Article 15.
- Moreover, the Supreme Court held that these rules violate Article 17 of the Constitution which forbids any form of discrimination on the basis of caste. The Article aims towards liberate and emancipate the society from all forms of traditional beliefs which associate caste with some form of religious purity. The Court highlighted that how even after so many enactments like Prevention of Atrocities Act to the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, 1989, Untouchability Act, 1955 and the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, the problem of caste based discrimination can’t be uprooted from the Indian society.
- The Courts have themselves tried to reform the Indian social system by highlighting the ideas of fraternity, social justice as given in the preamble itself. However, the practice of untouchability continue to prevail in the society.
- The Supreme Court made an important observation with respect to Article 21 of the Constitution. It stated the right to a dignified life is given also to inmates. Therefore, every person even a convict of the offence is entitled to a dignified life. No discrimination can be allowed to be practiced in prisons. Other various instances were highlighted like Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) where Justice Krishna Iyer has rightfully remarked that prisoners are as much entitled to a dignified life as the people outside the jail. Equality, justice must be practiced even in prisoners and no one should be subject to cruel and inhumane treatment in the prisons. Other cases were also appreciated like Sheela Barse Case, 1987( that a reporter may interview any inmate to know whether any fundamental right is violated) and Shabnam v. Union of India, 2015, (even when a person is sentenced to death, the right to a dignified life remains with that person). Accordingly the Supreme Court held that such prison rules violate Article 21 also.
- Next, the Supreme Court discussed the ambit of Article 23 of the Constitution. Article 23 prohibits trafficking and other forms of forced labor which includes discriminatory labor practices in prisons.
Final order of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court based upon the observation held that-
- The provisions of various state manuals are unconstitutional as they violate Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23 of the Constitution.
- The Union Government was directed to amend the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons to bring it in conformity with the Constitutional principles.
Conclusion
The case Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, has a great potential to reform the prions of India. The 3 months’ time period has been given to bring out the necessary changes. The observations which have highlighted the nature of Indian Constitution as a living document and as an evolving document are commendable. Also tagging the Constitution as a social document which promises a dignified life to all the sections of the society to each and every individual without any discrimination on religion, race, caste and any ground is also noteworthy and laudable observation.