Sukanya Shantha Case: Despite SC Ruling, Lot Needs to be Done to Address Caste-Based Prison Hierarchies

Recently, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice of India Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, ruled that the rules enabling caste-based discrimination in prisons are oppressive and violate the fundamental rights of prisoners.

The Bench observed that several state prison manuals enabled the segregation of prisoners and the assigning of work based on caste. These rules authorised the assigning of menial, degrading and inhumane tasks to marginalised and oppressed castes’ prisoners.

The Bench found such rules to be in violation of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 23 of the Indian Constitution and accordingly directed the revision, within three months, of not only the relevant state prison manuals but also the Model Prison Manual, 2016 (2016 Manual) and the Model Prisons Act, 2023 (2023 Act).

Although this judgement is a positive step in the right direction, it is not only long overdue but is also incomplete in itself. It would be a bit difficult to assume that the mere removal of violative provisions will disentangle this complex issue and prevent caste-discriminatory practices within prisons.

The Bench observed that several state prison manuals enabled the segregation of prisoners and the assigning of work based on caste.

Although Sukanya Shantha versus Union of India is a welcome judgment, a more nuanced and multi-faceted approach is needed to address discriminatory practices and the caste-based hierarchies within prisons.

Caste-based discrimination within prisons

The caste system, the division of society based on the birth of individuals, has been prevalent in our society for a very long time. It is axiomatic that such a deeply entrenched notion would not disappear by itself merely because an individual is in prison.

However, the difference is that those outside the prisons have the means to enforce their fundamental rights against discriminatory practices, whereas the institution of prison often prevents the inmates from asserting these rights.

It is essential to note that prisoners are equally entitled to these rights, subject to the restrictions imposed by law. The Supreme Court has time and again, in cases such as Sunil Batra versus Delhi Administration and Prem Shankar Shukla versus Delhi Administration, pointed out that an individual’s conviction and imprisonment do not strip them of their fundamental rights.

Additionally, international conventions such as the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisons, also known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, and the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners also prohibit any kind of unreasonable classification or discrimination in prisons based on social origin, birth, or any other status.

However, despite these explicit prohibitions by the Supreme Court and the recognition of several international conventions, caste-based discrimination is prevalent inside prisons.

As also highlighted by the petitioner in the instant case, this ranges from dividing jobs and labour to the segregation of prisoners on the basis of their caste, under the guise of maintaining peace and order inside the prison.

This kind of discrimination creates a power imbalance and hierarchy among the prison inmates, where the already overwhelmed marginalised inmates are forced to do menial jobs and are segregated from others, compelling them to experience the same harsh and wrongful social realities, that they are likely battling in the outside world.

Furthermore, according to the Prison Statistics of India, the inmates belonging to Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) are incarcerated in numbers disproportionately high to their share of the population.

Despite the significant number of inmates from these communities, this issue of caste discrimination was never independently addressed, and blatant discriminatory provisions continued to exist prior to this judgment.

This institutionalised form of discrimination would not only affect the immediate physical health of the inmates but also potentially affect their mental well-being. As observed in Odisha prisons, around 53 percent of the prisoners are suffering from severe or moderately severe depression.

Those outside the prisons have the means to enforce their fundamental rights against discriminatory practices, whereas the institution of prison often prevents the inmates from asserting these rights.

The persistent discriminatory practices could potentially exacerbate the already fragile conditions of such prisoners. Furthermore, the potential for intersectional discrimination against female prisoners belonging to marginalised and oppressed castes can have cascading effects on their mental health and hinder the broader aim of their rehabilitation.

Along with the problem of rules enabling caste-based segregation of prisoners and the assigning of work, it has been observed in various prisons that while the rules exempted undertrial prisoners from being assigned jobs in a prison, officials nevertheless assign jobs to them based on these oppressive notions.

This signifies that beyond mere adherence to rules by prison officials, there are several other reasons that perpetuate caste-based discriminatory practices within prisons.

Factors contributing to discrimination

There are several factors that perpetuate caste-based discrimination within prisons, making it difficult for inmates to raise their voices against these inhumane practices.

The most troubling issue is the institutionalised form of discrimination which persists in different states. Several states have prison manuals based on the Prisons Act of 1894, which stipulates that labour must be divided based on the caste of the individuals.

Tasks considered ‘pure’, such as cooking, are assigned to ‘higher castes’, while ‘impure’ tasks, such as cleaning the toilets and sweeping, are allotted to those of ‘lower-caste’.

This division is likely based on the dogmatic pretext that certain tasks, considered closer to divinity, must be shielded from the perceived impurity associated with ‘lower-caste’ individuals.

The Supreme Court, in the instant case, has tried to address this form of discrimination, but it also acknowledged the fact that this alone would not be enough, stating: “Discrimination against the SCs, STs and Denotified Tribes has continued in a systemic manner. Remedying systemic discrimination requires concrete multi-faceted efforts by all institutions.”

Despite explicit prohibition by the Supreme Court and the recognition of several international conventions, caste-based discrimination is prevalent inside prisons.

Along with the aforementioned problem, another factor contributing to the persistent caste-based discrimination is the invisibilisation of this discourse by mainstream scholars.

Many scholars who engage in prison studies either overlook the role of caste in various forms of discrimination or choose not to explore this aspect in depth. A recent study of the attitudes of various prison scholars towards prison hierarchies revealed that most of them did not perceive caste as a significant factor in determining the relative hierarchy of prisoners.

Instead, they contended that other factors such as education and relative wealth of the prisoners shaped their position within the prison hierarchy, thereby neglecting the influence of caste and its contribution to these very factors.

In the past, the Union ministry of home affairs (MHA) has issued several advisories clarifying that the manual prohibits any division of duties based on caste, however, the issue persisted.

This leads us to another important factor: the problem of lack of information. There is a generalised problem of lack of information among the prisoners about their rights and the channels available to raise concerns.

This information gap makes it potentially challenging for reforms to be effectively implemented at the ground level, often delaying their intended impact.

Sudha Bharadwaj, in her book From Phansi Yard: My Year with the Women of Yerwada and in various interviews, highlights the dismal state of legal aid, noting the lack of accountability and the failure of lawyers to meet or correspond regularly with their clients, which ultimately hinders proper representation of inmates.

Given this, it would be very difficult to assume that the lawyer would pay attention to the violations of personal liberty and degradation of dignity faced by a marginalised individuals inside the prison premises, independent of the legal proceedings of the inmate in court.

Tasks considered ‘pure’, such as cooking, are assigned to ‘higher castes’, while ‘impure’ tasks, such as cleaning the toilets and sweeping, are allotted to those of ‘lower castes’.

Additionally, several civil society organisations attempting to intervene and address these violations face significant challenges, such as limited access to state prison manuals and other relevant documents, which are often withheld for security reasons.

When such organisations seek to investigate systemic abuses within the prison system, they are frequently denied access to necessary materials, hindering any comprehensive critique of the system.

Given the multifold challenges posed by these factors, there is a need to address these barriers, which collectively perpetuate a systemic form of caste-based discrimination within prisons.

Need for redress

Going forward, there are four possible solutions to address the complex issue of caste-based discrimination in prisons. Firstly, there must be a representation of marginalised communities and the participation of former inmates of these communities in rule-making.

Generally, prison rules, such as rules of segregation, are created from the perspective of prison officials, who are expected to create order and security within the premises.

However, such an approach risks creating rules that are considered arbitrary by inmates and disconnected from their experiences. Having proper representation of such communities would help in providing valuable insights into the lived realities of prisoners and suggest rules that are not overly authoritarian and detached from prisoners’ concerns.

Secondly, there is a need to mainstream the discourse on caste as an independent factor in creating hierarchies among inmates within prisons. As pointed out previously, many scholars overlook the role of caste in shaping hierarchies within prisons, often emphasising other socio-economic factors.

Thus, there is a need to study caste not only as an independent factor but also to ascertain how it fuels other factors, such as education and the relative wealth of inmates, in the creation of these hierarchical structures.

Moreover, as mentioned previously, various scholars and their studies recognise that the possession of social and economic capital significantly influences the hierarchy within the prison, which is essential for the enforcement of rights and access to privileges.

There is a problem of lack of information among the prisoners about their rights and the channels available to raise concerns.

The lack of such capital would often make it difficult for inmates from marginalised communities to challenge this rigid hierarchical structure on their own. Therefore, the third suggestion is to make the system of legal aid more robust by creating and implementing mechanisms that increase the accountability of lawyers, such as mandating regular visits to clients.

Additionally, incentivising careers in legal aid can bring in more competent lawyers under this system to facilitate the proper representation of prison inmates. The focus should be not only on legal proceedings in court but also on preventing any kind of violation of personal liberty and degradation of human dignity inside the prison.

Lastly, there is a need to get rid of the opacity between prisons and the outside world. Over the past few years, the ministry of home affairs has come up with the 2016 Manual and the 2023 Act with the aim of aligning prison laws with the principles of reformation and rehabilitation of prison inmates.

If the main objective of prisons is the rehabilitation of inmates and not retribution, then it is crucial to foster greater transparency about the conditions and events inside prisons.

Therefore, it is necessary that research scholars, law students, and civil society organisations are allowed to actively participate in the process of reformation and rehabilitation of inmates.

This could include greater access to several documents related to the rights and current conditions of inmates inside the prison, along with facilitating and streamlining jail visits and interaction with inmates, to eliminate the opacity between this draconian institution and the outside world.

In the short term, to address the immediate concerns of the oppressed prisoners, there is a need to find ways to circumvent this problem of opacity by using methods such as interviewing current and former inmates about their experiences, which would help to better understand the challenges faced by marginalised prisoners.

However, in the long term, there is a need for abolitionist reforms that place emphasis on dismantling incarceration rather than perpetuating such oppressive structures under the guise of ‘reforms’.

As Angela Davis also points out in her book, Are Prisons Obsolete?, the institution of prisons creates a barrier that prevents any meaningful engagement with and resolution of the issues affecting the communities, which are disproportionately represented among inmates.

As mentioned previously, individuals of marginalised communities are incarcerated in numbers that are disproportionately high compared to their population. Prison, as an institution, prevents the understanding of the fundamental problems being faced by such communities and reinforces the traditional caste-based hierarchies within its premises, thereby defeating its purpose of rehabilitation as envisaged by the State.

The failure of the institution to fulfil its intended purpose makes it crucial, in the long term, to look for alternatives that substitute prisons rather than promoting the existing structures.

Thus, there is a need to promote the ideas of restorative justice by emphasising open dialogue as the means for resolving conflicts. Such a mechanism would further the goal of rehabilitation of the offender by moving away from the traditional criminal system, which focuses merely on punishing the wrongdoer.

It would also help the offender to share their experiences and emotions, eventually helping to identify and address the underlying issues being faced by people from marginalised communities.

Ayush Gairola is a third-year BALLB student at NLSIU, with a keen interest in human rights and public law.