Discrimination in prisons | Day 1: Delhi and Chhattisgarh yet to file compliance report on non-discrimination in prisons
Discrimination in PrisonsJudges: J.B. Pardiwala J, R. Mahadevan J
Today, a Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ordered the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) to submit a compliance report on the October 2024 judgement that struck down rules perpetuating caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons.
Senior Advocate Dr. S. Murlidhar appeared as the Court-appointed amicus curiae. Murlidhar was the counsel in Sukanya Shantha v Union of India (2024), where the caste-based rules were struck down. The Court took suo moto cognisance of the issue of discrimination in prisons and sought to monitor states’ action in tackling the issue at the conclusion of the Sukanya Shantha case.
Counsel for various state governments were directed to submit their compliance reports in the hearing today.
Background
On 10 December 2020, journalist Sukanya Shantha published an investigative story, which revealed widespread caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons. It highlighted discriminatory rules in prison manuals which called for barrack segregation and work allocation on the basis of caste.
On 12 December 2023, Shantha filed a writ petition challenging various state prison manuals and rules that perpetuated caste-based labour division and. barrack segregation. The writ also challenged rules that labelled Denotified and Nomadic Tribe (DNT) communities as “habitual offenders”, a colonial-era terminology. The petition contended that the rules infringed Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23 of the Constitution.
On 3 October 2024, a bench of former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that the existing manuals and rules violated the fundamental rights of prisoners. The Court directed the Union government and states to revise their prison manuals and rules and remove any casteist connotations from them. The Court also directed the Union to make changes to the Model Prison Manual, 2016, and the Model Prison and Correctional Services Act, 2023 within three months.
The bench also directed the governments of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh to revise their prison manuals and rules within three months.
In the judgement the Court took suo moto cognisance of discrimination in prisons on the basis of caste, gender and disability. It directed the Union and state governments to submit a compliance report within three months, showing that prisons across the country were following the Sukanya Shanta directives.
The Court also directed the National Legal Services Authority to submit a joint status report, based on the collective status reports of various State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) on the prevailing situation of caste-based discrimination in prisons. The SLSAs’ status reports would be based on regular inspections undertaken by the SLSAs and the Board of Visitors (formed under the Model Prison Manual, 2016 to identify caste-based discrimination).
On 15 January 2025, a bench of Justices Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan issued notice in the suo moto matter.
NCRB made party to the case, directed to file compliance report
Murlidhar informed the Court that the directive given in Sukanya Shanta to delete the “caste” columns from prison registers did not prohibit the NCRB from collecting statistics on undertrials and convicts. Initially, there was some confusion regarding the directive’s applicability to the NCRB.
The NCRB’s data provides insight into the caste background of undertrials and convicts in Indian prisons. As of 31 December 2022, 21% of undertrials belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, 9% to the Scheduled Tribes, and 35% to the Other Backward Classes.
In November 2024, the Court had clarified that the NCRB could continue collecting this data. Citing this clarification, Murlidhar recommended that the Court issue a notice to the NCRB directing them to submit a compliance report. He also requested the bench to direct the Union government to disseminate this clarification to all states. The request was accepted and a notice was issued to the NCRB.
Murlidhar: 13 states have submitted compliance reports
Murlidhar then referred to the Office Report prepared by the Registry before the hearing. According to the report, 13 state governments and the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) had submitted compliance reports. However, several state counsel pointed out that they had filed their reports the previous day, which had not yet been reflected in the Registry’s report.
After a headcount of all state counsel, Justice Pardiwala concluded that only the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Chhattisgarh government had yet to file their compliance reports. He granted them a week’s time to submit them.