# Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 753
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-10-03
- **Bench:** Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sukanya-shantha-v-union-of-india-ors-37292
- **Pages:** 146

## Headnote

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 casteprejudices - 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
o

## Text

_Characters 0–39,815 of 330,858. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39815 for what follows._

[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 casteprejudices - 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.R.
495
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors.
remissions has to be maximisation of the reformatory potential
of prisons - Such classification should be based solely on the
correctional needs of the individual prisoner - Thus, Rules that
discriminate among individual prisoners on the basis of their
caste specifically or indirectly by referring to proxies of caste
identity are violative of Art. 14 on account of invalid classification
and subversion of substantive equality - Constitution of India -
Arts.14, 15(1). [Paras 164-170, 196]
Prisons - Prison Manuals - Plea that provisions thereunder,
discriminate against marginalized castes and act to the
advantage of certain castes, by assigning cleaning and
sweeping work to marginalized castes, while allowing the
high castes to do cooking, which is direct discrimination
u/Art.15(1):
Held: Manuals/rules suffer from indirect discrimination by using
broad terms which act to the disadvantage of the marginalized
castes - Phrases such as "menial" jobs to be performed by castes
"accustomed to perform such duties" may appear to be facially
neutral, but refer to marginalized communities, given the history
of systemic discrimination against them - Such indirect usages
of phrases, which target the so-called 'lower castes', cannot be
permitted in the constitutional framework - Phrases, carry an
embedded bias that disadvantages marginalized communities by
reinforcing historical patterns of labour based on caste - These
provisions disproportionately harm marginalized castes, perpetuate
caste-based labour divisions and reinforce social hierarchies -
Manuals/rules are also based on and reinforce stereotypes
against the marginalized castes as also denotified tribes - These
stereotypes not only demean and stigmatize marginalized
communities and denotified tribes but also serve to maintain and
legitimize a social hierarchy that goes against the constitutional
values of equality - Tendency to treat members of denotified
tribes as habitual to crime or having bad character reinforces a
stereotype, which excludes them from meaningful participation in
social life - Discrimination against denotified tribes is prohibited
under the ground of "caste" in Art. 15(1), as the colonial regime
considered them as belonging to separate hereditary castes -
Thus, the impugned provisions violative of Art. 15 - Constitution
of India - Art.15. [Paras 171-175, 196]
496
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Prisons - Prison Manuals - Plea that provisions thereunder,
"practice" of untouchability, division of work on the basis
of caste, is a practice of untouchability prohibited under the
Constitution:
Held: Prison manuals allot tasks of a barber to individuals from
a certain caste, while sweeping work is allowed to Mehtar/Hari/
Chandal or similar castes - This is a caste-based delegation of
work based on the perceptions of the caste system that certain
castes are meant to do jobs of sweeping - Rule that a prisoner of
a high caste be allowed to refuse the food cooked by other castes
is a legal sanction by the State authorities to untouchability and the
caste system - Provisions that "men of wandering tribes" or "criminal
tribes" have a "strong natural tendency to escape" or are by "habit"
accustomed to theft reflects a stereotype that has its basis in the
colonial understanding of India's caste system - These stereotypes
not only criminalize entire communities but also reinforce castebased prejudices - They resemble a form of untouchability, as
they assign certain negative traits to specific groups based on
identity, perpetuating their marginalization and exclusion - Once
labelled a criminal tribe, individuals from these communities faced
systematic discrimination in employment, education, and social
services - Provision that "non-habitual" prisoner is "by social
status" and "habit of life accustomed to superior mode of living"
is another caste-based construct - It is only an injustice but also
reinforced existing power structures, ensuring that marginalized
groups were trapped in cycles of poverty and discrimination,
unable to transcend the stigmatization they faced - Thus,
impugned provisions violative of Art.17 - Constitution of India -
Art.17. [Paras 181, 183-184, 196]
Prisons - Prison Manuals - Right to overcome caste prejudices
u/Art.21 - Provisions under Prison Manuals, fostering the
antiquated notions of fitness of a particular community for a
certain designated job, reinforcing occupational immobility
of prisoners belonging to certain castes, if violative of Art.21:
Held: Art.21 provides for the right to overcome caste barriers
as a part of the right to life of individuals from marginalized
communities - Protection provided by Art.21 can be seen as
a constitutional guarantee that individuals from marginalized
communities should have the freedom to break free from these
traditional social restrictions - It extends beyond mere survival to
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
497
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors.
ensure that they can flourish in an environment of equality, respect,
and dignity, without being subjected to caste-based discrimination
which stifles their personal growth - When caste prejudices
manifest in institutional settings, such as prisons, they create
further restrictions on the personal development and reformation
of individuals from marginalized communities - When Prison
Manuals restrict the reformation of prisoners from marginalized
communities, they violate their right to life - When prisoners from
marginalized communities are subjected to discriminatory practices
based on caste, their inherent dignity is violated - Thus, the
impugned provisions violative of Art.21 - Constitution of India -
Art.21. [Paras 185-188, 196]
Prisons - Prison Manuals - Plea that provisions as regards
caste-based division of labour/work, forced labour and violative
of Art.23:
Held: Persons from specific communities performing honourable
tasks, while those from marginalized communities are forced into
undesirable work leads to unfair distribution of labour within the
prison system - It perpetuates the idea that some individuals are
inherently suited to low-status labour based solely on their birth,
reinforcing deep-rooted caste inequalities - Imposing labour or
work, which is considered impure or low-grade like cleaning latrines
and sweeping work, upon members of marginalized communities
amounts to forced labour u/Art.23 - Forced to undertake the menial
tasks simply because of their caste background robs prisoners of
the element of choice that other prisoners enjoy and constitutes
form of coercion - Art.23 was incorporated to protect the members
of oppressed castes from exploitative practices, where their
labour is taken advantage of, and without any adequate return -
However, prison rules, by exploiting labour of the oppressed castes,
perpetuate the same injustice to guard against which Art.23 was
inserted - Assigning labour based on caste background strips
individuals of their liberty to engage in meaningful work, and denies
them the opportunity to rise above the constraints imposed by their
social identity - Thus, impugned provisions violative of Art.23 -
Constitution of India - Art.23. [Paras 189, 191-196]
Prisons - Prison Manuals - Plea as regards existing
discrimination and continued targeting of the members of the
Denotified Tribes, and classification of "habitual offender":
498
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Held: Classification of "habitual offender" emerged prior to repeal
of the Criminal Tribes Act - After repeal several States enacted
new habitual offender laws in their jurisdictions - Most States
adopted an identical definition of "habitual offenders", referring to
a person who has been sentenced on conviction for at least three
occasion to "a substantive term of imprisonment" for any of more
of the specified offences - However, in some States, they were
used to refer to members belonging to criminal tribes/denotified
tribes, and applying that logic, several Prison Manuals/Rules have
also referred to "habitual offender" to mean members of Denotified
Tribes or wandering tribes, which cannot be accepted - Whole
community ought not to have either been declared criminal tribe
in the past or habitual offender in the present - Classification
of "habitual offender" has been used to target members of
Denotified Tribes - State governments to reconsider the usage of
various habitual offender laws-whether such laws are needed in
a constitutional system - In the meantime, definition of "habitual
offender" in the prison manuals/rules to be in accordance with
the definition provided in the habitual offender legislation enacted
by the respective State legislature, subject to any constitutional
challenge against such legislation in the future - In case, there
is no habitual offender legislation in State, references to habitual
offenders directly or indirectly, struck down as unconstitutional -
Union and State governments to make necessary changes in the
prison manuals in line with this judgment. [Paras 213-219]
Prisons - Prison reforms - Role of Legal Service Authorities
in prisons:
Held: In order to ensure that the fundamental rights of prisoners
are not violated, role of legal services authorities crucial - Right to
free legal aid and inspection by Legal Services Authorities including
by a Board of Visitors, essential ingredient. [Paras 220, 227]
Prisons - Prison Manuals - History of "Caste" in Prison
Manuals - Stated. [Paras 151-160]
Constitution of India - Nature of:
Held : It is an emancipatory document - It provides equal citizenship
to all citizens of India - Constitution is not just a legal document,
but gave a dignified identity to all citizens of India - It eliminated
the legality of caste-based discrimination, thereby raising the human
dignity of the marginalised communities - Constitution mandates
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
499
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors.
the replacement of fundamental wrongs with fundamental rights -
Through its provisions, it displaced a centuries-old caste-based
hierarchical social order that did not recognize the principle of
individual equality - It negated the ideals of social hierarchy -
Constitution is the embodiment of the aspirations of the millions
of caste-oppressed communities, which hoped for a better future
in independent India - Chapter on fundamental rights places the
provisions on equality, non-discrimination, equality of opportunity,
affirmative action, abolition of untouchability, freedom of speech
and expression, right to life, and prohibition of forced labour
together - Constitution thus complements the basic principles of
constitutionalism with provisions designed specifically to address
India's social problems - Constitution thus stands as a testament
to the fight against historical injustices and for the establishment
of an egalitarian social order - It aims to prevent caste-based
discrimination - It empowers the State to enact appropriate
legislation or take executive measures to tackle caste-based
discrimination. [Paras 14, 15, 17, 23]
Constitution of India - Art. 14 - Classification under -
Constitutional standards:
Held : Constitution permits classification if there is intelligible
differentia and reasonable nexus with the object sought -
Classification test cannot be merely applied as a mathematical
formula to reach a conclusion - Challenge u/Art.14 has to take into
account the substantive content of equality which mandates fair
treatment of an individual - In undertaking classification, a legislation
or subordinate legislation cannot be manifestly arbitrary, courts must
adjudicate whether the legislature or executive acted capriciously,
irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle, or did
something which is excessive and disproportionate - In applying
this constitutional standard, courts must identify the "real purpose"
of the statute rather than the "ostensible purpose" presented by the
State - Provision can be found manifestly arbitrary even if it does
not make a classification - Different constitutional standards have
to be applied when testing the validity of legislation as compared
to subordinate legislation. [Paras 25, 34]
Constitution of India - Art. 15 - Non-Discrimination under -
Interpretation:
Held: Discrimination is against citizens on any of several
grounds, including "caste" prohibited, because it has several
500
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
repercussions on human lives - Discrimination arises due to a
feeling of superiority/inferiority, bias, contempt, or hatred against
a person or a group - Discrimination also lowers the self-esteem
of the person being discriminated against - It can lead to unfair
denial of opportunities and constant violence against a set
of people - Discrimination can also be done by continuously
ridiculing or humiliating someone, who is on the weaker side of
the social spectrum - Discrimination also includes stigmatizing
the identity or existence of a marginalized social group - Certain
anti-discrimination principles emerge u/Art.15(1) - Discrimination
can be either direct or indirect, or both - Facially neutral laws
may have an adverse impact on certain social groups, that are
marginalized - Stereotypes can further discrimination against a
marginalized social group - State is under a positive obligation
to prevent discrimination against a marginalized social group -
Discriminatory laws based on stereotypes and causing harm or
disadvantage against a social group, directly or indirectly, are not
permissible under the constitutional scheme - Courts are required
to examine the claims of indirect discrimination and systemic
discrimination. [Paras 35, 36, 48]
Constitution of India - Art.17 - Ban on untouchability -
Mandate of Art. 17:
Held: Art.17 provides that Untouchability is abolished and its
practice in any form is forbidden - Constitution puts an end to the
socially discriminatory practice of untouchability - Untouchability and
caste discrimination led to severe social and economic disabilities
and cultural and educational backwardness" of the untouchables -
Enforcement of any disability arising out of Untouchability is a
criminal offense as per the law - It is a provision that can be
implemented both against the State and non-state actors such as
the citizens - Moreover, the framers of the Constitution did not refer
to any religion or community in the text of the provision - Injunction
against untouchability u/Art.17 is further strengthened by taking
away the subject-matter from State domain and placing it as an
exclusive legislative head to Parliament - Art.17 enunciates that
everyone is born equal - There cannot be any stigma attached
to the existence, touch or presence of any person - From time to
time, to implement the mandate of Art.17, Parliament has enacted
several legislations which aim to provide dignity to the affected
individuals. [Paras 49-51, 54]
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
501
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors.
Constitution of India - Art.21 - Right to live with dignity under:
Held: Dignity forms a part of the basic structure of the Constitution -
Dignity is the core which unites the fundamental rights because
the fundamental rights seek to achieve for each individual the
dignity of existence - Human dignity is a constitutional value and
a constitutional goal - Human dignity is intrinsic to and inseparable
from human existence - Implicit in this right u/Art.21 is the right
to protection against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment - There also exists a close relationship between dignity
and the quality of life - Dignity u/Art.21 is an integral aspect of
life, which requires sustenance of one's being to the fullest - Right
to dignity encapsulates the right of every individual to be treated
as a self-governing entity having intrinsic value - Nation must
prioritize human dignity ensuring that every person, regardless of
their background or identity, is able to live with respect, equality,
and freedom - Thus, human dignity forms the bedrock of social
justice and a just, compassionate society - Even prisoners are
entitled to the right to dignity - Jurisprudence which emerges on
the rights of prisoners u/Art.21 is that even the incarcerated have
inherent dignity - They are to be treated humanely and without
cruelty - Police officers and prison officials cannot take any
disproportionate measures against prisoners - Prison system
must be considerate of the physical and mental health of prisoners.
[Paras 55-58, 67]
Constitution of India - Art.23 - Prohibition of forced labour
and human trafficking under - Scope:
Held: Scope of Art.23 is wide, as it has left the term "begar"
undefined, and supplemented by the phrase 'other similar forms'
of forced labour - Framers of the Constitution consciously left the
terms undefined so that future interpretation is not restrictive -
Intellectual background of Art.23 lies to facilitate the citizens in
exercising their fundamental rights - Exploitative socio-economic
practices can hinder the right to live a dignified life - Begar or
bonded labour was entrenched in India's social system, against
which Art.23 makes a blow - Broad scope of Art.23 can be invoked
to challenge practices where no wages are paid, non-payment of
minimum wages takes place, social security measures for workers
are not adopted, rehabilitation for bonded labour does not happen,
and in similar unfair practices - State shall be held accountable
even in cases where the violation of Art. 23 is done by private
502
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
entities or individuals - Art.23 can also be applied to situations
inside prisons, if prisoners are subjected to degrading labour or
other similar oppressive practices. [Paras 68, 69, 85]
Constitution of India - Constitutional interpretation -
Elucidated. [Paras 6-13]
Constitution of India - Future of substantive equality and
institutional discrimination - Caste Discrimination - Noneradication of the evil of caste discrimination, despite 75
years since independence:
Held: There is a need for a national vision for justice and equality,
which involves all citizens - Real and quick steps needed to
identify the instances of existing inequalities and injustices in
the society - Compassionate approach needed - Institutional
approach needed where people from marginalized communities
could share their pain and anguish about their future collectively -
There is a need to reflect and do away with institutional practices,
which discriminate against citizens from marginalized communities
or treat them without empathy - Identification of systemic
discrimination in all spaces by observing patterns of exclusion
needed. [Paras 228, 229]
Criminal Tribes Act - Scope and object - Repeal of Criminal
Tribes Act - Discussed. [Paras 97-113, 120-126]
Model Prison Manual 2016 - Scope and object of:
Held: Model Prison Manual 2016 was prepared "to reflect the
understanding behind constitutional provisions, Supreme Court
directions on prison administration - It covers a range of aspects
relating to prisons, including institutional framework, custodial
management, medical care, education and training of prisoners,
maintenance of prisoners, emergency situations, remission,
parole, premature releases and inspection of prisons, among other
things - Manual of 2016 also focuses on "prison computerization,
special provisions for women prisoners, after care services, rights
of prisoners sentenced to death, repatriation of prisoners from
abroad, and on prison correctional staff" - New chapters on legal
aid and inspection of prisons also incorporated. [Para 200]
Model Prison Manual 2016 - Manual of 2016 - Certain
ambiguities - Elucidation:
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
503
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors.
Held: Manual 2016 suffers from several lacunae specifically as
regards its classification of "habitual offenders" and caste based
discrimination - Manual mandates the classification of undertrial
prisoners in three categories, wherein habitual offenders are
tagged along with "Gangsters, hired Assassins, dacoits, serial
killers/rapists/violent robbers, drug offenders, communal fanatics
and those highly prone to escapes/ previous escapees/attack on
police and other dangerous offenders/including those prone to
self-harm/posing threat to public order" - Habitual offenders are
tagged in the same category in relation to classification of high
risk offenders and for determination of the level of security for
effective surveillance - Similarly, regarding the women prisoners,
it has been provided that "Habitual offenders shall be separated
from casual prisoners" and that "Habitual offenders, prostitutes
and brothel keepers must also be confined separately" - Phrase
"habitual offender" in several prison manuals refers to people
from denotified or wandering tribes - Therefore, this definition
cannot be left to be interpreted and applied "in accordance with
the provisions of applicable law or rules" - Secondly, Manual
does not explicitly prohibit physical caste-based segregation
of prisoners, except in prisons for women - Third, the Manual
does not prohibit division of work on the basis of caste, except
in cooking - Manual 2016 should have taken into account such
practices and provided specifically for their prohibition - Fourth,
Manual does not refer to the provisions of the Prohibition of
Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act,
2013, which prohibit manual scavenging - Said Act has a binding
effect even on prisons - Fifth, caste-based privileges provided to
certain prisoners are not forbidden - No special treatment shall
be given to any group of persons or individuals on the basis of
caste in any scenario. [Paras 201-208]
Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023 - Scope
and object of - Problematic provisions:
Held: Model Act is a comprehensive document which covers all
relevant aspects of prison management-security, safety, scientific
and technological interventions, segregation of prisoners, special
provision for women inmates, taking appropriate action against
criminal activities of prisoners in the prison, grant of parole and
furlough to prisoners, their education, vocational training and skill
development, etc - It is for the respective State Governments
to make use of the guidance provided in the Act of 2023 and
504
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
enact a suitable legislation on Prisons in their jurisdictions for
bringing improvement in prison management and administration
of prisoners - Model Act does not contain reference to prohibition
of caste-based discrimination - Provision to that effect should be
inserted in the Model Act - It should ban segregation or division
of work based on caste - Definition of "Habitual Offender" u/s.
2(12) that habitual Offender means a prisoner who is committed
to prison repeatedly for a crime also problematic - Phrase
"committed to prison repeatedly" vague and over-broad - It can
be used to declare anyone as a habitual offender, even if they
have not been convicted for a crime - Model Act also provides
that "habitual offenders" may be housed in a high security prison -
In addition thereto the Act creates a category of "recidivist",
which means "any prisoner who is convicted for a crime more
than once" - "Habitual/recidivist prisoners" may be classified
separately and segregated in prisons - Also, Chapter IX dealing
with "Protection of Society from Criminal Activities of High-Risk
Prisoners, Habitual Offenders and Hardened Criminals", seems
to be over-board. [Paras 209-212]
Social Protection - Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and Denotified Tribes - Prevention of discrimination and
atrocities - Jurisprudence on social protection in PostIndependence India - Stated. [Paras 127-144]
Suo motu - Suo motu cognizance - Initiation of suo motu
cognizance of the discrimination inside prisons on the ground
of caste, gender, disability - Case to be titled as In Re:
Discrimination Inside Prisons in India. [Para 231 (vi)]
Case Law Cited
Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1993] 1 SCR 594 :
(1993) 1 SCC 645; Justice (Retd.) K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of
India [2015] 9 SCR 99 : (2017) 10 SCC 1; K Ranjitsinh v. Union
of India [2024] 3 SCR 1320 : 2024 INSC 280; Common Cause v.
Union of India [2018] 13 SCR 1204 : (2018) 4 SCALE 1; Shafin
Jahan v. Asokan K.M. [2018] 4 SCR 955 : (2018) 16 SCC 368;
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 2 SCR 621 : 1978 INSC
16; CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
[2019] 16 SCR 424 : 2019 (16) SCALE 40; Kalpana Mehta v.
Union of India [2018] 4 SCR 1; Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of
India [2018] 7 SCR 379 : (2018) 10 SCC 1 : 2018 INSC 790;
Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India [2024] 2
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
505
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors.
SCR 420 : 2024 INSC 113; Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
[1973] Supp. 1 SCR 1 : (1973) 4 SCC 225; State of Kerala v. N.M.
Thomas [1976] 1 SCR 906 : (1976) 2 SCC 310; Indian Medical
Association v. Union of India [2011] 6 SCR 599 : (2011) 6 SCALE
86; Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39; Indian Young
Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala [2018] 9 SCR 561 : (2019)
11 SCC 1 : 2018 INSC 908; Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of
India [1950] 1 SCR 869 : 1950 SCR 869; State of Bombay v. F. N.
Balsara [1951] 1 SCR 682 : 1951 SCR 682; State of West Bengal
v. Anwar Ali Sarkar [1952] 1 SCR 284 : (1952) 1 SCC 1; Ram
Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar [1959] 1 SCR 279; E.P.
Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [1974] 2 SCR 348 : (1974) 4 SCC
3; Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India [2024] 2
SCR 420 : 2024 INSC 113; Shayara Bano v. Union of India [2017]
9 SCR 797 : (2017) 9 SCC 1; State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh
2024 INSC 562; Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India [2007] 12
SCR 991 : (2008) 3 SCC 1; National Legal Services Authority v.
Union of India [2014] 5 SCR 119 : (2014) 5 SCC 438; Rajbala v.
State of Haryana [2015] 12 SCR 1106 : 2015 INSC 912; Karma
Dorjee v. Union of India [2016] 9 SCR 968 : (2017) 1 SCC 799;
Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya [2020] 3 SCR
833 : 2020 INSC 198; Lt. Col. Nitisha v. Union of India [2021] 4
SCR 633 : (2021) 15 SCC 125; Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures
Films India (P) Ltd [2024] 7 SCR 246 : 2024 INSC 465; Soosai v.
Union of India [1985] Supp. 3 SCR 242 : 1985 Supp SCC 590;
State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale [1992] Supp. 3 SCR 284 :
1995 Supp (4) SCC 469; Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam
v. State of Tamil Nadu [2015] 11 SCR 1110 : (2016) 2 SCC 725;
Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2023] 8 SCR 581 :
(2023) 4 SCC 1; Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India [2022] 14 SCR
1 : (2023) 5 SCC 1; State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia [1995]
1 SCR 897 : (1995) 3 SCC 221; Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of
India [2020] 2 SCR 727 : (2020) 4 SCC 727; Safai Karamchari
Andalon v. Union of India [2014] 4 SCR 197 : 2014 (11) SCC
224; Balram Singh v. Union of India [2023] 14 SCR 1083 : 2023
INSC 950; Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory
of Delhi [1981] 2 SCR 516 : (1981) 1 SCC 608; Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Union of India [1984] 2 SCR 67 : (1984) 3 SCC 161;
Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India [2016] 4 SCR 638 : (2016) 7 SCC
761; M. Nagaraj v. Union of India [2006] Supp. 7 SCR 336 :
(2006) 8 SCC 212; X2 v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 9 SCC 433;
Sunil Batra (I) v. Delhi Administration [1979] 1 SCR 392 : (1978)
506
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
4 SCC 494; Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC
488; Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration [1980] 2 SCR 557 :
1979 INSC 271; Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail [1979] 1
SCR 512 : (1978) 4 SCC 104 : 1978 INSC 149; Kishore Singh
Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan [1981] 1 SCR 995 : (1981)
1 SCC 503; Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra [1988] 1 SCR
210 : (1987) 4 SCC 373; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa [1993]
2 SCR 581 : (1993) 2 SCC 746; D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
[1996] Supp. 10 SCR 284 : (1997) 1 SCC 416; Mehmood Nayyar
Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh [2012] 8 SCR 651 : (2012) 8 SCC
1; Shabnam v. Union of India [2015] 8 SCR 289 : (2015) 6 SCC
702; 'X' v. State of Maharashtra [2019] 6 SCR 1 : (2019) 7 SCC
1; People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India [1983]
1 SCR 456 : (1982) 3 SCC 235; Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan
[1983] 2 SCR 271 : (1983) 1 SCC 525; Labourers Working on
Salal Hydro Project v. State of Jammu & Kashmir [1983] 2 SCR
473 : (1983) 2 SCC 181; Neeraja Chaudhary v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (1984) 3 SCC 243; P. Sivaswamy v. State of Andhra
Pradesh [1988] Supp. 2 SCR 346 : (1988) 4 SCC 466 : State
of Gujarat v. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat AIR 1998 SC 3164;
Public Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Tamil Nadu [2012] 9
SCR 579 : (2013) 1 SCC 585; Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State
of Gujarat [2020] 13 SCR 886 : (2020) 10 SCC 459; State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Krishna Balothia [1995] 1 SCR 897 : 1995
INSC 99; Murthy Match Works v. Asst Collector of Central Excise
[1974] 3 SCR 121 : (1974) 4 SCC 428; Hiralal Mallick v. State of
Bihar [1978] 1 SCR 301 : (1977) 4 SCC 44; Mohammed Ajmal
Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid v. State Of Maharashtra
[2012] 8 SCR 295 : 2012 INSC 357; Mohd. Hussain v. The State
(Govt. of NCT) Delhi AIR 2012 SC 750; National Campaign on
Dalit Human Rights v. Union of India [2016] 9 SCR 122 : AIR 2017
SC 132; Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra
[2018] 4 SCR 877 : 2018 INSC 248; Union of India v. State of
Maharashtra [2019] 12 SCR 1125 : 2019 INSC 1102; Hariram
Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan [2021] 8 SCR 855 : 2021 INSC 701;
Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2021] 3 SCR 470 :
2021 INSC 272; Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra
[2019] 4 SCR 709 : 2019 INSC 305; Amanatullah Khan v. The
Commissioner of Police Delhi [2024] 5 SCR 927 : 2024 INSC 383;
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [2014] 8 SCR 128 : 2014 INSC
463; Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telangana [2022] 3 SCR 5 :
2022 INSC 386 - referred to.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
507
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation,
Oxford University Press (1999), at pages 50, xii-xiii; Granville
Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, Oxford
University Press (1966), p. xi; Marc Galanter, Law and Society
in Modern India, Oxford University Press (1989), 2018 Reprint,
p. 185; Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of
a Nation, Oxford University Press (1966), p. xii; Granville Austin,
Working A Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience, Oxford
University Press (1999), p. 7; Isabel Wilkerson, Caste: The Origins
of Our Discontents, Penguin Random House (2020), p. 167;
Rahul Choragudi, et al, Caste Matters in Public Policy: Issues and
Perspectives, Routledge (2024), Reprint, p. 2; Anurag Bhaskar, The
Foresighted Ambedkar: Ideas that Shaped Indian Constitutional
Discourse, Penguin (2024), pp. 68-87; Anurag Bhaskar, The
Foresighted Ambedkar: Ideas That Shaped Indian Constitutional
Discourse, Penguin (2024), pp. 176-191; B. Shiva Rao, Framing of
India's Constitution, Vol. 5, pp. 249-257; B.R. Ambedkar, "Evidence
Before the Southborough Committee", in Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar:
Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 256; B.R. Ambedkar, "Castes in
India", in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol.
1, p. 16;B.R. Ambedkar, "Annihilation of Caste", in Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 54; B.R. Ambedkar,
"Philosophy of Hinduism", in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings
and Speeches, Vol. 3, pp. 25- 26; B.R. Ambedkar, "Annihilation
of Caste", in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches,
Vol. 1, p. 86; B.R. Ambedkar, "Castes in India", in Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 18; B.R. Ambedkar,
"Castes in India", in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and
Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 14; Anastasia Pilavsky, "The 'Criminal Tribe'
in India before the British", Comparative Studies in Society and
History 57, no. 2 (2015): 323-54, at p. 327; Anastasia Pilavsky, "The
'Criminal Tribe' in India before the British", Comparative Studies
in Society and History 57, no. 2 (2015): 323-54, at p.326; John
Lewis Gillin, Taming the Criminal: Adventures in Penology, p. 110;
John Lewis Gillin, Taming the Criminal: Adventures in Penology,
Macmillan Company (1931), pp. 115-16, 122; B.R. Ambedkar,
"Evidence Before the Southborough Committee (1919)", in Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 255; "Dr.
Ambedkar at the Round Table Conferences", in Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 2, p. 504; B.R. Ambedkar,
"Annihilation of Caste", in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and
508
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 47; Marc Galanter, "Law and Caste in Modern
India", Asian Survey (1963), Vol. 3, No. 11, pp. 544-59, at p.
545; Marc Galanter, "Untouchability and the Law", Economic and
Political Weekly (1969), Vol. 4, No. 1/2, pp. 131- 170, at p. 131;
Committee on Prison Discipline to the Governor General of India
in Council, 1838, page 106; David Arnold and David Hardiman
(eds.), Subaltern Studies VIII: Essays in Honour of Ranajit Guha,
Oxford University Press (1994), pp. 148-187, at p. 172; Report
of the Inspector of Prisons, Oudh, 1826, p. 33 as cited in David
Arnold (1994), p. 172; David Arnold, "Labouring for the Raj: Convict
Work Regimes in Colonial India, 1836-1939", in Christian G Vito
and Alex Lichtenstein (eds), Global Convict Labour, Brill (2015),
pp. 199-221, at p. 209; Secretary, India, Home (Judicial), to Chief
Secretary, Madras, 8 July 1871, Madras Judicial Proceedings, no.
98, 24 October 1871] - as cited in David Arnold (2015), p. 210;
Report of The Group of Officers on Prison Administration, 1987,
p. 156 ("RK Kapoor Committee"); Michael Klarman, Unfinished
Business: Racial Equality in American History, Oxford University
Press (2007); Jamal Greene, How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our
Obsession with Rights is Tearing America Apart, Mariner Books,
2022, p. 248; Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (translated
by Myra Bergman Ramos), Penguin 2017, p. 24; Alan Paton, Cry,
The Beloved Country, Vintage Books, 2002; Bell Hooks, Salvation:
black people and love, Harper Perennial, 2001; pp. 214-15; Nusrat
F. Jafri, This Land We Call Home: The Story of a Family, Caste,
Conversions and Modern India, Penguin (2024), p. Xv - referred to.
Lists of Websites
The Criminal Tribes Enquiry Committee Report (1949-50), https://
ia802807.us.archive.org/11/items/dli.csl.944/944.pdf, p. 92; Model
Prison Manual 2016, p. 4, https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/
files/PrisonManual2016.pdf; B.B. Pande, "Expanding Horizons
of Criminal Procedure Law", SCC Journal (2021), https://www.
scconline.com/blog/post/2021/07/07/expanding-horizons-ofcriminal-procedure-law/; B.R. Ambedkar, "States and Minorities", in
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 393,
https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/CPV/Volume1.pdf - referred to.
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, 2022; Constitution of India; Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Model Prison Manual for the
Superintendence and Management of Prisons in India, 2003;
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
509
Sukanya Shantha v.