In a recent interview with a lead news portal, journalist Sukanya Shantha remarked that caste remains conspicuously absent from mainstream discussions about Indian prisons. She, along with lawyer Disha Wadekar, petitioned the Supreme Court of India last year, resulting in the landmark ruling in Sukanya Shantha vs Union of India and Ors., which struck down provisions in various State prison manuals that legitimized caste-based discrimination.
In several States, prisoners are still assigned work based on caste. Prisoners from certain 'suitable' communities — those deemed accustomed to performing 'menial' or 'impure' duties — are tasked with cleaning latrines or sweeping, while those from 'higher castes' are given more 'dignified' roles such as cooking. In its judgment, the Court condemned these practices as exploitative, finding that such labor divisions perpetuate state-sanctioned untouchability. The Court also addressed the issue of caste-based segregation in barracks, declaring it 'unconstitutionally vague' and 'indeterminate' as it 'reinforces caste differences and animosity' among prisoners.
Further, the judgment observed that the classification of prisoners belonging to de-notified tribes, who are communities historically criminalized under colonial laws as 'habitual offenders', reduces these prisoners' humanity to negative stereotypes, resulting in their continued exclusion and marginalisation.
Central to the ruling is the emphasis on a prisoner's right to substantive equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. By condemning the facade of 'facially neutral' prison rules, the Court clarified that these frameworks entrench prejudices — particularly that prisoners from marginalized communities are somehow less deserving of dignified, skilled work. Instead, the Court noted that reform and rehabilitation opportunities should be based on individual abilities and correctional needs, and not one's caste or socioeconomic background. Subjecting prisoners to caste-based discrimination only stifles their growth and violates their inherent dignity, protected under Article 21.
'You shall not see caste'
While the Court's decision to strike down caste-based practices in prison is a significant step forward, one aspect of the judgment warrants reconsideration: its directive to remove caste references from prison records. This sweeping directive is not well-explained in the judgment and seems excessive, especially at a time when debates over a nationwide caste census are gaining momentum.
Given the judgment's overall tone, it seems that the directive aims to counteract discrimination against caste-oppressed communities. However, caste identity is so deeply ingrained in India's social fabric that simply removing this information from registers is insufficient to eradicate discrimination and segregation. Family names, localities, social connections, and other such markers will continue to reveal caste, allowing discrimination to persist within prisons. Removing reference to caste in prison registers without addressing underlying structural issues, risks erasing the lived reality of caste-based oppression in prison rather than dismantling it.
Furthermore, marginalized communities, particularly Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, are disproportionately represented in prisons across India. This overrepresentation is due to various factors, including limited access to legal services, low levels of legal literacy, and unequal distribution of resources. Addressing these disparities requires detailed data on the caste composition in prisons, along with an understanding of how caste-based privileges and barriers affect access to justice. When used effectively, caste data can improve the experiences of prisoners and support their rehabilitation. Research shows that racial, religious, and other community-based groups within prisons play a key role in shaping prisoners' experiences and supporting their reintegration after serving time.
In this regard, the directive to eliminate caste-related data from prison records seems misplaced. As the Court rightly pointed out, the Constitution is powerful enough to break the chains of caste — but we cannot address what we refuse to see.
The judiciary's own bias
In addition to efforts aimed at eliminating caste from prisons and other criminal justice institutions, the judiciary must confront its own caste biases. In recent years, we have witnessed judges in constitutional courts mocking officers from caste-oppressed communities, calling for Brahmins to always be at the helm, blaming reservations for having destroyed the country, and branding a Muslim-dominated area of a city as “Pakistan “. Many more such instances of communal and casteist remarks can be found in judgments from district courts across the country, revealing a deeper rot in the system. Last month, the Court urged judges to acknowledge their own biases and refrain from making casteist, communal, and sexist comments. However, the Court's primary concern seemed to be protecting the dignity and reputation of the judiciary, rather than addressing the impact these biases may have on judicial decisions. The judiciary must move beyond these recommendations to mask bias and take active steps to ensure that casteism, communalism and sexism have no place in the courtroom.
Legal reforms are only one step
As Ute Frevert explores in The Politics of Humiliation, when the state systematically targets marginalized groups, it leads to institutional humiliation, not only consolidating coercive state control but also profoundly undermining the dignity of those individuals. In prisons, caste-based discrimination fuels this vicious cycle of dehumanisation, affecting these prisoners' relationships, treatment, and, ultimately, their chances for rehabilitation.
The Supreme Court's judgment represents an important step forward in the fight against caste-based discrimination in India's prisons. It serves as a reminder that such discrimination is not a relic of the past but continues to affect the lives of millions, particularly those behind bars. However, legal reforms alone cannot overcome centuries of oppression. For real change, we must first recognize the power structures that uphold caste hierarchies and work to transform not only the legal frameworks but also the mindsets that sustain them. Only then can India fulfill the promise of equality and dignity enshrined in its Constitution.
Aditya Ranjan is a doctoral researcher in criminology, sociology, and social policy at Loughborough University, UK Ashna Devaprasad is a law graduate from India and a criminal justice researcher based in London
Published – November 03, 2024 04:30 am IST
A step forward in removing caste bias from India's prisons
In a recent interview with a lead news portal, journalist Sukanya Shantha remarked that caste remains conspicuously absent from mainstream discussions about Indian prisons. She, along with lawyer Disha Wadekar, petitioned the Supreme Court of India last year, resulting in the landmark ruling in Sukanya Shantha vs Union of India and Ors., which struck down provisions in various State prison manuals that legitimized caste-based discrimination.
In several States, prisoners are still assigned work based on caste. Prisoners from certain 'suitable' communities — those deemed accustomed to performing 'menial' or 'impure' duties — are tasked with cleaning latrines or sweeping, while those from 'higher castes' are given more 'dignified' roles such as cooking. In its judgment, the Court condemned these practices as exploitative, finding that such labor divisions perpetuate state-sanctioned untouchability. The Court also addressed the issue of caste-based segregation in barracks, declaring it 'unconstitutionally vague' and 'indeterminate' as it 'reinforces caste differences and animosity' among prisoners.
Further, the judgment observed that the classification of prisoners belonging to de-notified tribes, who are communities historically criminalized under colonial laws as 'habitual offenders', reduces these prisoners' humanity to negative stereotypes, resulting in their continued exclusion and marginalisation.
Central to the ruling is the emphasis on a prisoner's right to substantive equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. By condemning the facade of 'facially neutral' prison rules, the Court clarified that these frameworks entrench prejudices — particularly that prisoners from marginalized communities are somehow less deserving of dignified, skilled work. Instead, the Court noted that reform and rehabilitation opportunities should be based on individual abilities and correctional needs, and not one's caste or socioeconomic background. Subjecting prisoners to caste-based discrimination only stifles their growth and violates their inherent dignity, protected under Article 21.
Table of Contents
'You shall not see caste'
While the Court's decision to strike down caste-based practices in prison is a significant step forward, one aspect of the judgment warrants reconsideration: its directive to remove caste references from prison records. This sweeping directive is not well-explained in the judgment and seems excessive, especially at a time when debates over a nationwide caste census are gaining momentum.
Given the judgment's overall tone, it seems that the directive aims to counteract discrimination against caste-oppressed communities. However, caste identity is so deeply ingrained in India's social fabric that simply removing this information from registers is insufficient to eradicate discrimination and segregation. Family names, localities, social connections, and other such markers will continue to reveal caste, allowing discrimination to persist within prisons. Removing reference to caste in prison registers without addressing underlying structural issues, risks erasing the lived reality of caste-based oppression in prison rather than dismantling it.
Furthermore, marginalized communities, particularly Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, are disproportionately represented in prisons across India. This overrepresentation is due to various factors, including limited access to legal services, low levels of legal literacy, and unequal distribution of resources. Addressing these disparities requires detailed data on the caste composition in prisons, along with an understanding of how caste-based privileges and barriers affect access to justice. When used effectively, caste data can improve the experiences of prisoners and support their rehabilitation. Research shows that racial, religious, and other community-based groups within prisons play a key role in shaping prisoners' experiences and supporting their reintegration after serving time.
In this regard, the directive to eliminate caste-related data from prison records seems misplaced. As the Court rightly pointed out, the Constitution is powerful enough to break the chains of caste — but we cannot address what we refuse to see.
The judiciary's own bias
In addition to efforts aimed at eliminating caste from prisons and other criminal justice institutions, the judiciary must confront its own caste biases. In recent years, we have witnessed judges in constitutional courts mocking officers from caste-oppressed communities, calling for Brahmins to always be at the helm, blaming reservations for having destroyed the country, and branding a Muslim-dominated area of a city as “Pakistan “. Many more such instances of communal and casteist remarks can be found in judgments from district courts across the country, revealing a deeper rot in the system. Last month, the Court urged judges to acknowledge their own biases and refrain from making casteist, communal, and sexist comments. However, the Court's primary concern seemed to be protecting the dignity and reputation of the judiciary, rather than addressing the impact these biases may have on judicial decisions. The judiciary must move beyond these recommendations to mask bias and take active steps to ensure that casteism, communalism and sexism have no place in the courtroom.
Legal reforms are only one step
As Ute Frevert explores in The Politics of Humiliation, when the state systematically targets marginalized groups, it leads to institutional humiliation, not only consolidating coercive state control but also profoundly undermining the dignity of those individuals. In prisons, caste-based discrimination fuels this vicious cycle of dehumanisation, affecting these prisoners' relationships, treatment, and, ultimately, their chances for rehabilitation.
The Supreme Court's judgment represents an important step forward in the fight against caste-based discrimination in India's prisons. It serves as a reminder that such discrimination is not a relic of the past but continues to affect the lives of millions, particularly those behind bars. However, legal reforms alone cannot overcome centuries of oppression. For real change, we must first recognize the power structures that uphold caste hierarchies and work to transform not only the legal frameworks but also the mindsets that sustain them. Only then can India fulfill the promise of equality and dignity enshrined in its Constitution.
Aditya Ranjan is a doctoral researcher in criminology, sociology, and social policy at Loughborough University, UK Ashna Devaprasad is a law graduate from India and a criminal justice researcher based in London
Published – November 03, 2024 04:30 am IST
Source link