This two-part blog series delves into the pervasive issue of caste discrimination within Indian prisons, analysing the recent Supreme Court judgement in the case of Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India. Part 1 highlights the caste-based discrimination in the allocation of manual labour among inmates. Part 2 sheds light on the discriminatory treatment endured by members of denotified tribes. Through this analysis, we aim to illuminate the complex interplay of caste and discrimination within the Indian penal system, highlighting the urgent need for reform and justice.

Despite 75 years of the Constitution prohibiting caste-based discrimination, State governments have categorised and segregated prisoners and prison labour on the basis of caste. Shantha, through her scholarship (see here and here) exposes the regressive caste practices in Indian prisons including the caste-based division of manual labour. The professions and occupations that are considered dignified are allotted to those from the upper caste and menial work to those from the lower caste. This does not just categorise work on basis of their dignity but also individuals on basis of their position in social hierarchy. Further, prejudice against tribal communities by categorising them as habitual offenders is discrimination on basis of their caste or place of birth and perpetuation of colonialism by the Indian State and shall be discussed in Part 2.

Notably, state prison rules like The Rajasthan Prison Rules, 1951  explicitly allowed such caste-based labour practices by designating cooking and medical care as high-caste duties, reserved for Brahmins or sufficiently high-caste Hindu prisoners, while tasks like sweeping and cleaning are designated for lower-caste prisoners. Similarly, the Uttar Pradesh Prison Rules classify individuals from the ‘Mehtar shreni‘, a caste traditionally placed at the lowest level of the hierarchy and associated with manual scavenging, as the scavenger class. It further specifies that a convict should not be assigned degrading or menial tasks unless they belong to a class or community traditionally accustomed to performing such duties. For example, if a prisoner belongs to a barber caste, like the Naik community, he would typically be assigned hair cutting or shaving work in prison. Likewise, the West Bengal Jail Rules state that food must be cooked and distributed by prisoner-cooks of an appropriate caste, while sweepers should be chosen from the Mehtar or Hari castes, or from other castes, such as Chandal, if they traditionally perform such work outside prison. In the same way, the Madhya Pradesh Prison Rules assign one Mehtar to each latrine to ensure excreta is covered with dry earth and the same is cleaned and replaced. Similarly, the Himachal Pradesh Prison Rules state that menial work shall be performed by females of ‘suitable caste’. In many States, despite these discriminatory rules not existing on paper, prisoners were still assigned menial labour on the basis of their caste.

These rules in the Prison Manuals/Rules went against the direct constitutional protections against caste-based discrimination, violation of dignity, and untouchavility. The constitutionality of these provisions was considered impugned  in Sukanya Shantha.

Discrimination

The Court held the impugned provisions to be violative of Article 15 of the Constitution which prohibits the State from discriminating against an individual on the basis of caste [164]. It held that these provisions discriminate against marginalised castes by assigning them ‘customary’ roles like cleaning and sweeping, while the high castes are given tasks like cooking [171]. It noted that facially neutral phrases such as “menial jobs” to be performed by castes “accustomed to perform such duties” target lower castes and reinforce historical patterns of caste-based labour [173]. The Court emphasised that perpetuating such stereotypes in official documents, like prison rules, normalises the notion that these tasks are inherently suited to marginalised communities, further entrenching harmful societal hierarchies [175].

Untouchability

Discussing how prison manuals specifically assigned tasks to particular communities based on birth,  the Court highlighted how the idea of certain occupations being deemed ‘menial or degrading’ is deeply rooted in the caste system and the practice of untouchability, thereby violating Article 17 of the Constitution, which abolishes untouchability and its practice in any form. The Court further held that no social group is born as “scavenger class” [176].

Dignity and forced labour

The Court also held that assigning labour based on caste and compelling marginalised caste members to perform ‘menial’ tasks constitutes forced labour under Article 23 and the caste background of marginalised prisoners strips them of the freedom of choice typically afforded to other inmates, coercing them into specific types of work, such as cleaning and sweeping [195]. The Court also stated that Article 21 goes beyond the right to mere survival and ensures an environment of equality, respect, and dignity, free from caste-based discrimination that impedes an individual’s personal growth [187-188]. The Prison Rules, however, deny lower-caste individuals the dignity and equal treatment they deserve, further hindering their opportunities for reformation and personal development.

The Court’s judgment in Sukanya Shantha exposes not just the persistence of caste hierarchies within prisons but also their unsettling alignment with the very logic of incarceration in India – punishment as social ostracism rather than rehabilitation.  It compels us to reconsider whether carceral institutions in their current form can ever be spaces of transformation, or if they inherently perpetuate exclusion and dehumanisation. Moving forward however, the judgment offers hope for a more equitable prison system that prioritises rehabilitation over caste-based exploitation.