Rules of 10 states declared unconstitutional
The Supreme Court termed the prison rules of 10 states that discriminate in prisons as ‘unconstitutional’. These discriminations included division of manual labor, segregation of barracks, and discrimination against prisoners on the basis of caste. The bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra said that prisoners also have the right to live with dignity.
‘British laws are influencing this era’
The court said, ‘The criminal laws of the colonial period continue to influence the post-colonial period as well.’ The Supreme Court asked the Center and states to amend their prison rules and laws within three months and file compliance reports before it. The bench took note of certain discriminatory provisions of the prison rules of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Kerala, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh and struck them down.
‘All people are born equal’
The Supreme Court said that Article 17 states that all people are born equal. No stigma can be attached to the existence, touch or presence of any person. Through Article 17, our Constitution strengthens the equality of status of every citizen…. Citing an example, the court said that in the caste system, convicts from lower communities are expected to continue their traditional occupations in prison and the caste system outside the prison is replicated within the prison as well.
‘Discriminating against prisoners is against the law’
The Court further said, ‘Rules which specifically or indirectly discriminate between prisoners on the basis of caste identity are violative of Article 14 by reason of illegal classification and violation of fundamental equality.’ For example, rules regarding assignment of sweeping duties, which provide that ‘sweepers shall be selected from the Scavenger or Hari caste’, also amount to discrimination.
Decision given on the petition of journalist Sukanya Shanta
Delivering the 148-page judgment on a PIL filed by journalist Sukanya Shanta, the Chief Justice also ordered removal of the ‘caste’ column and any reference to caste from the registers of undertrial or convicted prisoners inside jails. Sukanya Shanta had also written an article on the caste-based discrimination prevalent in prisons.
‘Prisoners have the right to live with dignity’
The Supreme Court said in the decision, ‘Prisoners also have the right to live with dignity. Not providing respect to prisoners is a sign of the colonial period, when they were deprived of human qualities. The judgment said, ‘The authoritarian regimes of the pre-Constitution era saw prisons not only as places of imprisonment but also as instruments of domination. This court, focusing on the changed legal framework brought about by the Constitution, has held that prisoners also have the right to dignity.
‘Human dignity is a constitutional value’
The judgment states that human dignity is a constitutional value and constitutional goal. Citing other judgements, the court said, “Human dignity is integral to human existence and the two cannot be separated” and also includes ‘the right to protection against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’. “
The CJI said that there is also a close relationship between dignity and quality of life. he/she said that the dignity of human existence is fully realized only when a person leads a quality life.
Reference to fundamental rights
The Supreme Court said, ‘These provisions are in violation of Articles 14 (equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 17 (abolition of untouchability), 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and 23 (right against forced labor) of the Constitution. Due to violation it is declared unconstitutional. All States and Union Territories are directed to revise their prison manuals/rules in accordance with this judgment within a period of three months.’
Center given three months time
It ordered the Center to make necessary changes in the Model Prison Rules, 2016 and the Model Prison and Correctional Services Act, 2023, as per the judgment, to remove caste-based discrimination within three months.
“The reference to ‘habitual offenders’ in the Jail Rules/Model Jail Rules shall be as per the definition given in the Habitual Offenders Law enacted by the respective State Legislatures, subject to any future constitutional challenge against such law,” the bench said. All other mentions or definitions of ‘habitual offenders’ in the jail manual/rules under consideration are declared unconstitutional.”
Instructions for change in jail rules
The judgment said that if a state does not have a habitual offender law, the Central and State governments are directed to make necessary changes in the prison rules as per the judgment. Along with this, the police are directed to follow the guidelines… to ensure that members of the liberated tribes are not arrested arbitrarily.
Let us tell you that the Supreme Court also took suo motu cognizance of cases of caste-based discrimination inside prisons and listed the matter after three months with the heading ‘Regarding discrimination inside prisons’. It asked states to submit compliance reports on the decision. The court directed the Center to circulate a copy of the judgment to the chief secretaries of all states and union territories within a period of three weeks.
(With agency inputs)
