From Investigation to Petition: How SC Ruling on Caste Discrimination in Prisons Came to Be

Summary

This video discusses a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India, which declared caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons unconstitutional. The conversation highlights how journalist Suk Shanta's investigative series exposed systemic caste biases, including segregation and forced labor, based on caste in prisons across various Indian states. The Rajasthan High Court responded by changing its prison manual for the first time in 75 years. The Supreme Court has now ruled that such discriminatory practices must be abolished within three months, signaling a significant victory for human rights in India's prison system.

Takeaways

• 🛑 Caste discrimination is still prevalent in Indian prisons, with labor and privileges often divided along caste lines.
• 🔒 Prisons in some Indian states, like Rajasthan and MP, have manuals that assign specific menial jobs to lower castes, such as manual scavenging and cleaning.
• 😨 A case involving a scheduled caste prisoner from Bihar highlighted the inhumanity of being forced to clean toilets in a Rajasthan prison due to his caste.
• ⚖️ The Supreme Court of India declared caste-based discrimination in prisons unconstitutional, ruling in favor of a petition filed by journalist Suk Shanta.
• 📰 The petition emerged from a 2020 series of stories by The Wire, focusing on the systemic discrimination faced by lower castes and other marginalized groups in Indian prisons.
• 📚 Despite the 2016 Model Prison Manual lacking such discriminatory provisions, these practices persist in many states.
• 👨‍⚖️ The court directed that all states must abolish these practices within three months and file compliance reports.
• ⚖️ The court emphasized the violation of constitutional rights, such as equality (Articles 14, 15, 16), dignity (Article 21), and protection from untouchability (Article 17).
• 👩‍🏫 The petition was pivotal in pushing systemic change, highlighting the role journalists can play in advocating for judicial intervention when reporting on human rights abuses.
• 📋 The court's ruling also extended to denotified communities, historically criminalized and marginalized, ensuring their rights are better protected.

Q & A

What was the Supreme Court's ruling on the case discussed in the video?

The Supreme Court ruled that caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons is unconstitutional, and states are required to eliminate such practices. The judgment was based on a petition that challenged discriminatory practices in prison manuals.

What were the main issues highlighted in the petition regarding Indian prisons?

The petition highlighted caste-based labor division, caste segregation within prisons, and discriminatory practices against certain communities, such as denotified tribes. It also discussed the unfair treatment of lower-caste prisoners who were assigned menial tasks, while prisoners from higher castes were given more prestigious roles.

How do caste-based labor divisions manifest in Indian prisons?

In several states, prison manuals explicitly assign menial jobs, such as cleaning toilets or manual scavenging, to prisoners from lower castes (Scheduled Castes). Meanwhile, prisoners from higher castes (such as Brahmins) are assigned more refined or prestigious roles like cooking or administrative work.

What impact did the series of stories on prison discrimination have?

The series of stories led to significant changes, including the Rajasthan High Court's suo moto action, which resulted in changes to the Rajasthan prison manual. The series brought attention to discriminatory practices and prompted judicial intervention.

Why was there a focus on the denotified communities in the petition?

Denotified communities (historically criminalized communities) are often unfairly targeted as 'habitual offenders' and face systemic discrimination in the criminal justice system. The petition sought to address these issues and highlight their specific plight.

How did the petitioner come to file the case in court?

The journalist behind the petition, after extensively covering caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons, realized that substantial nationwide changes were not happening. When advocacy efforts didn’t lead to changes, they decided to file the petition themselves to prompt judicial intervention.

What role did the 2016 model prison manual play in this case?

Although the 2016 model prison manual from the Union Government does not include caste-based discriminatory practices, it also doesn't include measures to eliminate these practices. The court pointed out that these discriminatory practices continue despite the existence of the manual.

What were the key actions the Supreme Court ordered in this ruling?

The Supreme Court ordered states to eliminate unconstitutional practices, such as caste-based labor and segregation, within three months and submit compliance reports. The Union government was also instructed to send the judgment to all state chief justices.

What future steps did the court leave open for further action?

The court kept the petition open, allowing for further exploration of other forms of discrimination that might exist in prisons, such as discrimination based on gender, disability, and more. This opens the door for ongoing research and judicial intervention.

How does this case reflect the relationship between journalism and judicial activism?

This case shows how journalism can lead to judicial impact. While journalists typically aim for societal impact through reporting, in this instance, the journalist became a petitioner when other means of advocacy failed, leading to a landmark judicial intervention.