A Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the PIL raised a very important issue.
—
ON Wednesday, the Supreme Court sent notice to the Union government and the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Punjab, Odisha, Jharkhand, Kerala and Maharashtra on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging prison manuals and the rules which still perpetuate caste-based discrimination in jails.
A Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the PIL raised a critical issue.
It requested the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta to assist the court on the matter.
The Bench was hearing a petition filed by journalist Sukanya Shantha through advocate-on-record Prasanna S.
The petition states that the caste realities of the carceral system in India entail a range of discriminatory practices including the division of labour determined on the basis of caste hierarchy, and caste-based segregation of barracks.
The prison manuals of various states sanction such discrimination and forced labour on the grounds of caste.
The petition gives an example of the West Bengal Jail Code, which states that work in the prison should be designated by caste, such as cooking work by dominant castes and sweeping work by people from a particular caste.
Moreover, several manuals continue to have discriminatory provisions against prisoners from identified tribes.
“The separation of Thevars, Nadars and Pallars, who are allotted different sections in Palayamkottai Central Jail in Tamil Nadu provides a glaring instance of caste-based segregation of barracks,” the petition states.
The Andhra Pradesh Prison Rules, 1979 state that conservancy duties shall not be extracted from prisoners who owing to their caste prejudices are not in the habit of performing such work when in a free state.
“A Sikh received into prison, may if there is no Sikh prisoner cook, and if he so desires, prepare his own meals in the general prison kitchen in addition to his ordinary labour,” the Rules state.
The Rules further state that the prison tasks including conservancy work shall be allotted at the discretion of the superintendent with due regard to the capacity of the prisoner, his education, intelligence and attitude and so far as may be practicable with due regard to his previous habits.
As per the Madhya Pradesh Jail Manual, 1987, the cook shall be from the non-habitual class of prisoners.
A habitual criminal is defined as a person who is by habit a member of a gang of decoits or thieves or dealers in salves or in stolen property and any member of an identified tribe subject to the discretion of the state government. It also provides that the cook shall be of a non-habitual class.
“Any prisoner who objects on account of religious considerations to eat food cooked by the existing cooks shall be appointed a cook and be made to cook for the full complement of men,” the manual states.
Senior advocate S. Muralidhar appeared for the petitioner.
