The Supreme Court on Thursday banned as “unconstitutional” all caste discrimination in Indian jails where Dalit, Adivasi and OBC inmates are forced into “degrading or manual” jobs like scavenging and cleaning, and high-caste prisoners have the right to refuse food cooked by the marginalised castes.

A bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud asked all the states and Union Territories to end these practices — which it compared to “untouchability” and “forced labour” — within three months and file compliance reports.

While the discriminatory provisions are part of the colonial-era Prisons Act of 1894, they continue in independent India despite manuals and acts framed by the Centre as recently as last year, the apex court found.

“The rule that a prisoner of a high caste be allowed to refuse food cooked by other castes is a legal sanction by the state authorities to untouchability and the caste system,” the bench, which included Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, said.

The provision that food is to be cooked by prisoners from a “suitable caste” empowers jail officials to discriminate against the marginalised castes, it said.

It frowned on the imposition of work such as cleaning latrines and sweeping only on “Mether, Hari caste or Chandal” and similar castes, saying it amounted to“forced labour”.

“We therefore find that the impugned provisions are violative of Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 17 (untouchability), 21 (life and liberty), and 23 (prohibition against forced labour),” the bench said.

It asked the central government to make the necessary changes — as highlighted in the judgment — to the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 within three months.

Some of the existing prison rules that Justice Chandrachud, who authored the 148-page judgment, referred to:

◉ Maharashtra rules that state that “habitual women prisoners; prostitutes and procuress and young women prisoners” are to be segregated.

◉ Rule 289(g) of the Uttar Pradesh manual, which says: “A convict sentenced to simple imprisonment shall not be called upon to perform duties of a degrading or menial character unless he belongs to a class or community accustomed to perform such duties; but may be required to carry water for his own use provided he belongs to the class of society the members of which are accustomed to perform such duties in their own homes.”

◉ Rule 158 in the UP manual, which refers to “convicts of the scavenger class working as scavengers in jails”.

◉ Rule 694 of the Bengal manual, which says: “…Interference with genuine religious practices or caste prejudices of prisoners should be avoided.”

◉ Rule 741 of the same manual, which says: “Food shall be cooked and carried to the cells by prisoner-cooks of suitable caste, under the superintendence of a jail officer….”

◉ Rule 793, which says: “...Sweepers should be chosen from the Mether 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 1,117, which says: “Any prisoner in a jail who is of so high a caste that he cannot eat food cooked by the existing cooks shall be appointed a cook and be made to cook for the full complement of men.”

◉ Rule 36 of the Madhya Pradesh manual, which says: “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. The mehtars shall empty the contents of the small receptacle into large iron drums and replace the receptacles in the latrine after having cleaned them.”

Quashing these rules, the apex court laid down guidelines such as:

◉ References to “habitual offenders” in the prison manuals will follow the definition in the state laws, subject to any constitutional challenge in the future. All other references or definitions of “habitual offenders” are unconstitutional.

While legally, a habitual offender tends to be a repeat convict, various states in practice accord the label to anyone accused in multiple cases. Habitual offenders are segregated in jails, living and working under more rigorous conditions than others.

◉ The “caste” column and any references to caste in undertrial and convicted prisoners’ registers are to be deleted.

◉ Members of the Denotified Tribes — communities considered “born criminals” and “criminal tribes” under colonial laws — must not be subjected to arbitrary arrest.

◉ (With the object of monitoring compliance), the apex court is taking suo motu cognisance of discrimination inside prisons on any ground such as caste, gender or disability, and the case will be listed after three months.

◉ The district legal services authorities and the board of visitors formed under the Model Prison Manual 2016 must jointly and regularly inspect prisons to see whether caste-based or other kinds of discrimination are still taking place.

They will submit a joint inspection report to their respective state legal services authority, which must send a common report to the national legal services authority, which must file a joint status report before this court in connection with the suo motu writ petition.

The judgment came on a petition moved by journalist Sukanya Shantha, author of an article, “From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System”, published in The Wire on December 10, 2020.