Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024 INSC 753)

  1. Home
  2. Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024 INSC 753)

Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024 INSC 753)

Case Background:

1. Petitioner: Sukanya Shantha, a journalist, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging caste-based discrimination in State Prison Manuals.

2. Claims: She argued that certain provisions in State Prison Manuals fostered caste-based roles in prisons, assigning labor and privileges based on caste.

Provisions Challenged:

• Duties: Simple imprisonment convicts were assigned degrading tasks unless they belonged to a specific caste.

• Overseer Roles: Certain castes were restricted from being appointed as night guards.

• Cooking and Serving: Caste determined who could cook or serve food to prisoners.

• Sweeper Role: Only specific castes were assigned to sweeping duties.

• High-Caste Privilege: High-caste prisoners could only eat food cooked by someone of a similar caste.

Supreme Court’s Decision:

1. Unconstitutionality: The provisions were held unconstitutional as they violated:

  • • Article 14 (equality),
  • • Article 15 (prohibition of caste discrimination),
  • • Article 17 (abolition of untouchability),
  • • Article 21 (life and liberty),
  • • Article 23 (prohibition of forced labor).

2. Order: The Court directed States to revise their prison manuals within three months and submit a compliance report.

Reasons for the Decision:

1. Unconstitutional Classification:

  • • Caste-based roles in prison reinforce occupational immobility, depriving prisoners of equal reformation opportunities.
  • • Vague terms like “habit,” “custom,” and “natural tendency to escape” are indeterminate and discriminatory.

2. Direct and Indirect Discrimination:

  • • Rules assigning specific duties to marginalized castes or restricting roles based on caste perpetuate caste hierarchies.
  • • Seemingly neutral terms (“menial work”) disproportionately affect marginalized castes, violating Article 15(1).

3. De-Notified Tribe Discrimination:

  • • Denying these tribes supervisory roles reinforces stereotypes, akin to untouchability, violating Article 15(1) and Article 17.

4. Forced Labor:

  • • Assigning degrading tasks based on caste without choice equates to forced labor, violating Article 23.

5. Need for Change in the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023:

  • • Suggested adding a provision to explicitly prohibit caste-based discrimination.
  • • The definition of “Habitual Offender” in the Model Act was deemed overbroad, especially as it targets marginalized communities.

Directions to Union Government and States:

1. Removal of Caste Data: Directed the removal of the “caste” column from prisoner records.

2. Compliance Monitoring: States and Union Territories must amend prison manuals in line with this judgment within three months.

3. Prison Inspections: Directed the District Legal Services Authority and the Board of Visitors to regularly inspect prisons for discriminatory practices and report compliance.