LexSUKANYA SHANTHA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 493 : 2024 INSC 753 Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 1404 of 2023) 03 October 2024 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to caste-based discrimination in the prisons in the country. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 – Prisons in India – Caste-based discrimination – Writ petition seeking directions for repeal of the offending provisions in State Prison Manuals – Petitioner’s case that various State Prison Manuals sanction unconstitutional practices, violative of Arts 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23; that caste-based discrimination continues to persist in the prisons with respect to division of manual labour; segregation of barracks; and provisions discriminate against prisoners belonging to denotified tribes and “habitual offenders”; that the Model Prison Manual, 2016 does not address the impugned provisions related to caste discrimination; and sought direction to the Home Departments of the States to clarify the definition of “Habitual Offenders” in their respective Prison Manuals so as to prevent its misuse against the denotified tribes in prisons: Held: Impugned provisions are unconstitutional for being violative of Arts.14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 – In accordance with the instant judgment, all States and Union Territories to revise their Prison Manuals/Rules within the stipulated period; that Union government to make necessary changes, to address caste-based discrimination in the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023; that references to “habitual offenders” in the prison manuals/Model Prison Manual to be in accordance with the definition provided in the habitual offender legislation enacted by the respective State legislatures; that all other * Author 494 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports references or definitions of “habitual offenders” in the impugned prison manuals/rules unconstitutional; that the “caste” column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts’ prisoners’ registers inside the prisons to be deleted; that the Police to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar’s case and Amanatullah Khan’s case to ensure that members of Denotified Tribes are not subjected to arbitrary arrest; that this Court to take suo motu cognizance of the discrimination inside prisons; that all States and the Union government to file a compliance report on this judgment, on the first hearing of the suo motu petition; and that NALSA to file joint status report after compiling reports of inspection conducted by DLSAs and Board of Visitors and of SLSAs before this Court. [Paras 161-231] Prisons – Prison Manuals – Plea that Prison Manuals cast disparate burdens on prisoners based on their caste-identity, if violative of Art.14 – Caste, if an intelligible and rational principle of classification and has a rational nexus with the object of the classification: Held: Caste can be an intelligible principle of classification as it has been used to create protective policies for the marginalized castes – Constitution recognises caste as a proscribed ground of discrimination u/Art.15(1), and envisions a society free from caste- prejudices – However, caste cannot be a ground to discriminate against members of marginalized castes – Any use of caste as a basis for classification must withstand judicial scrutiny to ensure it does not perpetuate discrimination against the oppressed castes – While caste-based classifications are permissible under certain constitutional provisions, they are strictly regulated to ensure they serve the purpose of promoting equality and social justice – Classification of prisoners has been considered both from the point of view of security and discipline as well as reform and rehabilitation – However, there is no nexus between classifying prisoners based on caste and securing the objectives of security or reform – Limitations on inmates that are cruel, or irrelevant to rehabilitation are per se unreasonable, arbitrary and constitutionally suspect – Differentia between inmates that distinguishes on the basis of “habit”, “custom”, “superior mode of living”, and “natural tendency to escape”, is unconstitutionally vague and indeterminate – Objective of classification for labour for treatment and for conferment of entitlements such as [2024] 10 S.C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.