An instance where a Brahmin person would only eat the food prepared by a person from a “higher caste” was customary in India. This relic of Indian culture, also known as the caste system was also evident among the convicts facing incarceration in prisons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ( “SC” ) in the recent judgement of Sukanya Shantha v Union of India, attempted to eviscerate this practice wherein various provisions across Prison Manuals and Rules of multiple states were declared unconstitutional by the Court due to the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India ( “The Constitution”). Reportedly, multiple malpractices and procedures followed across various prisons in the country such as segregation of barracks, distribution of kitchen duty, cleaning of toilets, etc. had perpetrated caste-based discrimination. This Article will throw light on the doctrine of reasonable classification and intelligible differentia coupled with various provisions in the Manuals and Rules and their failure to adhere to the safeguard of the right to equality and equal protection guaranteed under Article 14 of The Constitution.
Doctrine Of Reasonable Classification And Intelligible Differentia
The doctrine of reasonable classification and intelligible differentia are used to decide upon the validity of a statute enacted by the legislature. The doctrine of Intelligible Differentia was developed in the case of Anwar ali Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, wherein the Supreme Court created a 2-Pronged Test to evaluate the constitutional validity of the statute under Article 14, two conditions must be met; firstly, the classification must be based on an intelligible differentia that distinguishes the grouped individuals or objects from those excluded, and secondly, the differentia must have a rational relation to the objective of the statute which is proposed to be achieved by the Legislature. Additionally in the case of E. P. Royappa Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR., the court gave the test of arbitrariness and opined that equality guaranteed under Article 14 gives protection against arbitrariness in state action. The classification cannot be arbitrary, the purpose while classifying any group from the rest must be just and reasonable and must not suffer from inherent arbitrariness or unfairness. Sometimes a statute may overcome the initial test of intelligible differentia, but if the object of the statute itself suffers from inherent discrimination or arbitrariness, then it violates the provisions of Article 14 as given by the court in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. CBI. Therefore, the test of reasonable classification requires evaluation of the differentia as well as the objective of the statute.
Analysis Of Prison Manuals Under Article 14
A prison manual is a document which underlines the guidelines for the effective management and administration of prisons. Prison Manuals are developed for the smooth and non-violent conduct of prisoners whilst incarcerated, they contain information on issues such as prison work, kitchen duties, prison construction etc. Article 26 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, states that all people are equal before law and law must guarantee equal protection against discrimination on grounds such as social origin.
On the other hand, the prison manuals in India suffer from explicit instances of caste-based discrimination wherein many provisions are constructed in a way to perpetuate segregation and differences between the inmates. This is evident in many instances such as; Rule 741 of the West Bengal Jail Code, which provides “Food shall be cooked and carried to the cells by prisoner-cooks of suitable caste, under the superintendence of a jail officer.” Rule 793 provides: “The barber should belong to the A class. Sweepers should be chosen from the Mehtar or Hari caste, also from the Chandal or other castes, if by the custom of the district they perform similar work when free, or from any caste if the prisoner volunteers to do the work.”
Rule 36 of the Madhya Pradesh Jail Manual, 1987 states: “While the latrine parade is being carried out, the Mehtars attached to each latrine shall be present, and shall call the attention of the convict overseer to any prisoner who does not cover up his dejecta with dry earth.”
Rule 26.69 of the Himachal Pradesh Prison Manual, 2021 states, “If there are no females of suitable caste for conservancy work, paid-sweepers shall be taken into the enclosure in charge of a warder and under conditions laid down in Paragraph 214.“
Upon analysis of these provisions, it is evident that the differentia for classification in these provisions is the presence of caste as a segregating factor. In our country, caste classification has been implemented as a means of promoting positive discrimination and enhancing the social status of marginalized communities. However, any classification not aimed at improving the conditions of marginalized communities would be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of The Constitution. Upon applying the test of reasonableness to the validity of the rules, the SC held that there is no nexus between classifying prisoners based on caste, the differentia that is based on “habit”, and “custom” is unconstitutionally vague and indeterminate. The SC further held that the manuals suffer from indirect discrimination targeting the lower class and are based on stereotypes against the marginalized castes. Such classification does not tend to achieve any reasonable distinction, instead it benefits a particular class over the others. For instance, the imposition of cleaning latrines or sweeping work only upon Mehtar or Hari caste is because these communities are “accustomed” to performing such duties, there exists no reasonable nexus and just cause for this distinction, and it is arbitrary at best. Therefore, the impugned regulations fail to satisfy the first test of reasonableness.
Concerning the second test, the objective sought to be achieved by the manuals also fails miserably. The basic objective of prison manuals is to establish a framework for the administration and treatment of prisoners whilst also promoting reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners, encouraging them to abandon criminal behaviour and enabling them to rejoin and contribute positively to society. The SC also opined that such rules do not take into account the potential of the individual prisoner as it does not regard the work based on capacity, health or education of the prisoner instead it is solely based on their historical, caste-based link with the profession, such practices are entirely opposed to substantive equality as it promotes institutional discrimination. Further, in Inacio Manuel Miranda v. State andC. Arul vs The Secretary To Government, the court also struck down irrational classifications within prison rules that discriminated based on economic or social status, reiterating that discrimination in any form within prisons is unconstitutional. Any use of caste as the basis for classification must face the judicial test to ensure that it does not violate the provisions of Article 15(1) of the Constitution. Even if caste is used as a differentiating factor, it must be used strictly to ensure the sole purpose of promoting equality and justice. Hence, there exists no reasonable classification or non-arbitrary motive between the classification of prisoners based on caste with the reformative objective sought to be achieved by prison manuals. Therefore, the rules also fail to adhere to the second test of reasonable classification. The SC has validly declared the impugned rules violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
Conclusion
The present judgement brings forward a ray of hope for prisoners who are subjected to caste-based discrimination even after 75 years of independence. The extreme measure of implementing caste-based segregation in the barracks of prisoners for the sole purpose of avoiding clashes and violence among the inmates is a slap in the face of the fundamental right to equality guaranteed to every citizen of the country which also includes prisoners under its ambit. It is similar to the argument which was given in the United States to legalize race-based segregation: separate but equal. Such a proposition finds no place in the Constitution of India. Any such classification which threatens the basic rights of individuals must be dealt with an iron fist, the test of intelligible differentia performs this function well. The shackles of evil, in the form of caste-based discrimination, are inextricably woven into our history but it must be broken with the power of the Constitution.
Authors: Kartikey Agrawal and Rishi Verma are 2nd-year law students at National Law Institute University, Bhopal.
