Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the existing caste-based discriminatory provisions in various State Prison Manuals are unconstitutional as they violate Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized the need to eliminate discrimination based on caste and social stigmatization, particularly against denotified tribes and marginalized communities, in the prison system. It directed States to remove any discriminatory provisions in their prison manuals and ensure compliance with constitutional values. The judgment reinforced the constitutional mandate for dignity, equality, and non-discrimination.
Facts:
The petitioner, a journalist, sought the repeal of discriminatory provisions in various State Prison Manuals that enforce caste-based segregation and the discriminatory assignment of manual labor within prisons. These practices were reported to still exist despite the enactment of progressive prison reforms. The petitioner argued that these provisions perpetuate caste-based prejudices and were contrary to the constitutional promise of equality and dignity for all prisoners. The Model Prison Manual, 2016, circulated to all States and Union Territories, was found to be inadequate in addressing these issues.
Issues:
- Whether the impugned provisions in the State Prison Manuals violate Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether caste-based discrimination in prison manuals, particularly against denotified tribes, is constitutionally permissible.
- Whether the Court should direct the States to amend their prison manuals to align with constitutional values.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that several State Prison Manuals still contain provisions that discriminate on the basis of caste, such as separate barracks and discriminatory division of manual labor based on caste identities. It was contended that these provisions are in direct contravention of Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), 17 (Abolition of Untouchability), 21 (Right to Life with Dignity), and 23 (Prohibition of Forced Labor) of the Constitution. The petitioner highlighted the targeting of denotified tribes as “habitual offenders” under these prison regulations, further perpetuating social ostracism.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The Additional Solicitor General, representing the Union of India, submitted that the Model Prison Manual, 2016, explicitly prohibits discrimination based on caste or religion and was circulated to all States and Union Territories. The Ministry of Home Affairs also issued advisories to ensure compliance. States like West Bengal contended that the discriminatory provisions in their jail codes had not been enforced for a long period and were already under review for deletion.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court analyzed the scope of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 in the context of prison rights. Article 14 prohibits arbitrary discrimination by the State, while Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of caste. Article 17 abolishes “untouchability,” and Article 21 guarantees the right to life and dignity. Article 23 prohibits forced labor. The Court held that these provisions enshrine the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination, which must be upheld even in prisons.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court referred to several landmark judgments, including Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, which established the basic structure doctrine emphasizing equality and dignity. The judgment also cited Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India and Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, which emphasized substantive equality and non-discrimination in line with constitutional morality. The doctrine of manifest arbitrariness, as elaborated in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, was applied to examine the validity of discriminatory provisions in prison regulations.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court observed that the constitutional promise of equality is not limited to the abolition of discriminatory laws but extends to eliminating discriminatory practices in all spheres, including prisons. Caste-based segregation and labor division in prisons are relics of a feudal and colonial mindset and have no place in a constitutional democracy. The judgment underscored that the existence of such provisions perpetuates caste-based hierarchy and stigma, in violation of fundamental rights.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court struck down the discriminatory provisions in State Prison Manuals as unconstitutional. It directed States to amend their prison regulations to align with constitutional principles of equality and dignity. The Court also ordered the States to remove any reference to “habitual offenders” in a manner that targets denotified tribes. This judgment serves as a reminder of the continuing need to eliminate systemic discrimination in all State institutions.
Implications:
The judgment has far-reaching implications for prison reforms in India. It mandates the States to overhaul their prison regulations to eliminate caste-based discrimination. This ruling is a significant step towards ensuring substantive equality and upholding the constitutional rights of marginalized communities, particularly denotified tribes. The decision reinforces that the State must take affirmative steps to eliminate all forms of discrimination and uphold the dignity and equality of every citizen, even within the confines of prison walls.
