discrimination in prisons

 discrimination in prisons

While the Supreme Court did away /  abolish with caste discrimination in prisons,

• taking basic amenities in prisons 
• by Amending the Model Prison Manual 2016 will ensure a minimum dignified life inside prisons

October 3, the Supreme Court in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024) 

reaffirmed the principle of non-discrimination in Indian prisons. The rules in jail manuals segregating prisoners based on caste was at the heart of this challenge. 

No arbitrary segregation

 Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980)

The Punjab Police Rules distinguished under-trial prisoners as ‘better class’ and ‘ordinary’. Only the ‘better class’ were exempted from wearing handcuffs. 

 said Economic and social considerations could not be the basis for classifying prisoners for the purposes of handcuffs. The provisions were held to be unconstitutional.

The Bombay High Court in Inacio Manuel Miranda v. State (1988) 

The Goa, Daman and Diu Prisoners Rules treated prisoners differently for writing welfare letters. 

• ‘Class-I prisoners’ could write four letters per month
• ‘Class-II prisoners’ could only write two. 

Madhukar Bhagwan Jambhale v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 

where a prohibition on writing letters to co-prisoners / prisnors , imposed by the Maharashtra Prison Rules, was struck down as having no logical basis and unduly inhibiting the prisoners’ constitutional rights.

A principle that resonated with the Court was that the prison itself could not strip the prisoners of rights they would otherwise be entitled to.

न्यायालय को जो सिद्धांत पसंद आया वह यह था कि जेल स्वयं कैदियों से उनके अधिकार नहीं छीन सकता, जिनके वे अन्यथा हकदार होते हैं।

Sukanya Shantha case  

Here, caste hierarchy was the basis of classification for labour inside prisons. This meant that only prisoners of certain ‘marginalised castes’ were given cleaning and sweeping jobs, and others were given jobs like cooking.

 The State Prison Rules stated that these castes were “accustomed to performing such duties”.

It perpetuated caste identity and prevented an equal opportunity to reform. The State Prison Rules and similar executive decisions were therefore set aside as discriminatory under Articles 14 and 15, with directions to the States to undertake amends.

The way forward

three petitions came before the Calcutta High Court

political prisoners 

which were decided together in August 2012 (Gaur Narayan Chakraborty and Others).  main issue before the Court was whether Maoists who were waging a war against the state using arms, and who were charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and other special statutes, could be treated as political prisoners. 

The trial court had rejected this demand of the petitioners in accordance with the West Bengal Correctional Services (WBCS) Act, 1992, on the premise that they were members of a banned terrorist organisation, and their activities were not for the common good of the people, but for the revolution with arms.

But High Court, after discussing municipal and international viewpoints 

they said - “the believers of any kind of political movement are to be acknowledged as political prisoners and thus, it cannot be held that those who participate in unlawful activities cannot be recognised as political prisoners”.

Though the Supreme Court did not have occasion to decide the special leave petition arising from this decision on merit, the Calcutta High Court’s judgment is significant for highlighting a similar right of prisoners to be treated in a dignified manner.

political prisoner is entitled to a few amenities 

The High Court noticed that  

such as a chair, table, light, iron cot, mattress, pillow, blanket, and mirror. He is entitled to cooking, services of a barber, writing material, and a newspaper, and is also permitted to receive books from his relatives. 

These facilities are a part of the basic human rights to which every prisoner ought to be entitled. The Court said these amenities should not be restricted to political prisoners. It suggested that the state administration re-look into the classification of prisoners and provide basic amenities to all. A slight improvement in the living conditions of prisoners in itself would erode the classification which the WBCS Act acknowledges.

While the Supreme Court’s recent judgment did away with caste discrimination inside prisons, incorporating basic amenities in prisons by suitably amending the Model Prison Manual 2016 will not only blur other distinctions, but will also ensure a minimum dignified life inside prisons.

सोर्स द हिन्दू