Guwahati: In a move that yearns to put an end to casteism in jail, the Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the basis of caste-based discrimination of inmates inside jails and issued notices to 11 states and the Union government after entertaining a PIL which alleged that inmates belonging to Dalit communities and denotified tribes, often referred to as habitual offenders, were assigned menial jobs and labor-intensive work inside jails.
The Apex Court having a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra took note of senior advocate S Muralidhar’s submissions that jail manuals of these 11 states discriminate in the allocation of work inside their prisons and inmates’ caste determines the places where they are lodged.
The present plea referred to Kerala Prison Rules and said they lay down a distinction between a habitual and a re-convicted convict, holding that those who are by habit a robber, house breaker, dacoit, or thief should be classified and separated from other convicts.
It also claimed that the West Bengal Jail Code lays down that work in prison should be designated by caste, such as cooking work will be undertaken by dominant castes and sweeping work shall be undertaken by people from particular castes.
The petition claimed that Rule 793 of the WB Jail Code says that the barber should belong to the A class and 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.
Referring to Rule 1117 of the WB Jail Code, the plea said, “The cooks shall be of the A class except at the Presidency Jail where well-behaved ‘B’ class prisoners may be employed as such.
“Any prisoner in a jail who is of high caste and objects 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.”
“As per the Madhya Pradesh Jail Manual, 1987, the cook shall be from the non-habitual class of prisoners.
“Relevant rules are: Rule 36: While latrine parade is being carried out, the ‘mehtars’ attached to each latrine shall be present.
“The ‘Mehtars’ shall empty the small receptacles into large iron drums and replace the receptacles after having cleaned them,” the plea said while highlighting the discriminatory provisions in Jail manuals of different states.”
During the hearing, Muralidhar claimed that certain de-notified tribes and habitual offenders are treated differently and discriminated against.
The court asked Muralidhar to compile jail manuals from the states and listed the plea for hearing after four weeks.
Issuing notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and others, the bench asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to assist the court in dealing with the issues raised in the PIL filed by Sukanya Shantha, a native of Kalyan in Maharashtra.
“The petitioner states that caste-based discrimination is there in barracks to the manual labour which is allotted and such discrimination among de-notified tribes and habitual offenders.
“The plea seeks repeal of offending provisions in state prison manuals. Issue notice to the Union and the state government…,” the court ordered.
“I have not heard of discrimination on caste… the segregation is usually based on undertrial prisoners and the convicts,” the solicitor general said.
Besides Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, the other states are Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Punjab, Odisha, Jharkhand, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.
The plea given by advocate Prasanna S said, “This petition is filed in the public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to bring to the notice of this court the continued existence and enforcement of rules and practices under various state prison manuals that are manifestly grounded in and reinforce caste-based discrimination.”
It said that the plea seeks appropriate directions for bringing such manuals and prison practices in conformity with the Constitution.