Caste-Based Labour and Segregation in Prisons Violate Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23: Supreme Court

The petitioner, a journalist, wrote an article published on 10 December 2020 on caste-based discrimination in prisons and sought repeal of the offending provisions of State prison manuals (para 1). She pointed to caste-based division of manual labour, segregation of barracks and provisions against Denotified Tribes and "habitual offenders" (para 2). The Union relied on the Model Prison Manual 2016 and a February 2024 advisory (para 3). West Bengal said its rules were not in force (para 4). The Court examined rules from several States, including Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan (para 149).

Caste may ground a classification only to benefit victims of caste discrimination, never to discriminate against marginalised castes (paras 164-165). Prison classification must be functional and aimed at security and reform, and caste has no nexus with either (paras 166, 169). Terms like "habit" and "superior mode of living" are unconstitutionally vague (para 168), so the rules fail Article 14 (para 170). Giving cleaning to marginalised castes while higher castes cook is direct discrimination under Article 15(1), and facially neutral words like "menial" and "accustomed" discriminate indirectly (paras 171-172). Cooking by a "suitable caste" and caste-wise allotment of work are practices of untouchability (paras 180-181). Article 21 includes the right to overcome caste barriers, and rules stifling reformation violate it (paras 187-188). Forcing menial work on oppressed castes is forced labour under Article 23 (para 194). The Model Prison Manual 2016 leaves "habitual offender" to other laws and bars caste-based segregation and work allotment only partly (paras 201-204). The "habitual offender" label has been used to target Denotified Tribes (para 218).