10 July 2024 3:47 PM GMT
While reserving judgment on a public interest litigation highlighting the issue of caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons, the Supreme Court today expressed displeasure with some of the provisions contained in state prison manuals and remarked that they were "very disturbing".
A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra heard the matter and concluded arguments on behalf of both sides.
Briefly put, the petition was filed by journalist-Sukanya Shantha highlighting discriminatory practices taking place in the prisons of certain states/UTs of India. To elucidate by way of example, she mentioned that the old Uttar Pradesh Prison Manual, 1941 provided for maintenance of caste prejudices of prisoners and designation of cleaning, conservancy, and sweeping work on caste basis. However, in 2022, amendments were made aligning it with the Model Manual and removing provisions for allotting work based on caste. Despite this change, the 2022 Manual continued to uphold a rule related to the preservation of caste prejudice and segregation of habitual offenders.
Shantha further claimed that there were identical discriminatory laws in the State Prison Manuals of 13 major states, including Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, Punjab, Bihar and Maharashtra.
Notice was issued on her plea to the Union Government and 13 State Governments in January this year.
When the matter came up for hearing today, Senior Advocate S Muralidhar and Advocate Disha Wadekar appeared for Shantha and argued that the discrimination was taking place in three ways: (i) through division of manual labor; (ii) through segregation of barracks on caste lines; (iii) through extant provisions in state prison manuals which discriminate against prisoners belonging to de-notified tribes (referred to as criminal or wandering and nomadic tribes in the manuals) and “habitual offenders”.
Besides the above, it was contended that the Model Prison Manual was inadequate insofar as there was a need to address caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons. The counsels further pointed out that they had placed on record testimonials from undertrials (past and present), detailing their experiences of the discriminatory practices.
Sr Adv Muralidhar, in particular, drew the court's attention to an advisory issued by the Union to states/UTs in February, 2024 to address the issue of caste-based discrimination. He pointed out that in the replies filed by some of the states, there was an admission of the discriminatory practices and the same were sought to be justified.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati (for Union), on the other hand, urged that prisons being a state subject, the Union can do nothing more than issuing an Advisory, unless the court directs that it monitor compliance and report back.
A counsel for State of Uttar Pradesh also submitted before the court that the state had filed its reply containing provisions from its prison manual as well as stating that there was no caste-based discrimination taking place in the prisons. The submission was however countered by Sr Adv Muralidhar, pointing to one of the provisions: "your Lordships may see [Rule] 289...it's really disturbing...'a convict sentenced to simple imprisonment shall not be called upon to perform duties of degrading character unless he belongs to a class or community accustomed to perform such duties'...what kind of reply is this? It does not even mention Rule 289".
Going through the provisions of Prison Manuals of UP and other states, the bench found merit in the petitioners' objections. Justice Pardiwala could be heard expressing serious displeasure at a provision (Rule 793) contained in West Bengal's Prison Manual. "What is this rule? Just read. It's very disturbing", the judge said to West Bengal's counsel.
Parting with the matter, the bench indicated that it would appoint nodal officers and ask the Central government to give clarification on provisions which were pointed out by petitioners as having ambiguity. It was also conveyed that the judgment to be passed would implicate role of District Legal Services Authorities, to ensure that it is duly implemented.
The petitioner's written submissions can be read here.
Case Title: Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1404/2023