'Separate But Equal' Philosophy Has No Place In Constitution : Supreme Court Rejects View That Caste-Based Segregation Of Prisoners Will Prevent Violence

In a significant judgment declaring prevailing caste-based segregation unconstitutional in a PIL filed by Sukanya Shantha, a journalist at The Wire, the Supreme Court has overruled a judgment of the Madras High Court which accepted that prison inmates segregated based on caste would prevent any untoward incident.In C. Arul v. The Secretary to Government (2014), in a petition praying to not discriminate the prisoners based on caste and forbearing the jail authorities from confirming Palayamkottai prison inmates on a caste basis, the High Court refused to entertain it. Instead, the Court accepted the explanation given by the State Government that "the inmates belonging to different castes are housed in different blocks, in order to avoid any community clash, which is prevailing common in Tirunelveli and Tuticorin Districts."It was also noted that “there is rivalry between two groups on account of caste feeling, which is regular in the District and in order to avoid any untoward incident and put an end to such rivalry, the Prison Authority is compelled to house the inmates of different communities in different blocks”.A bench of Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra remarked that it does not agree with the position taken by the High Court. It held: "It is the responsibility of the prison administration to maintain discipline inside the prison without resorting to extreme measures that promote caste-based segregation."It added: "Adopting the logic accepted by the High Court is similar to the argument which was given in the United States to legalize race-based segregation: separate but equal. Such a philosophy has no place under the Indian Constitution. Even if there is rivalry between individuals of two groups, it does not require segregating the groups permanently. Discipline cannot be secured at the altar of violation of fundamental rights and correctional needs of inmates. The prison authorities ought to be able to tackle perceived threats to discipline by means that are not rights-effacing and inherently discriminatory." "the differentia between inmates that distinguishes on the basis of “habit”, “custom”, “superior mode of living”, and “natural tendency to escape”, etc. is unconstitutionally vague and indeterminate. These terms and phrases do not serve as an intelligible differentia, that can be used to demarcate one class of prisoners from the other. These terms have resultantly been used to target individuals from marginalized castes and denotified tribes.., the bench averred.The Supreme Court has held that classification based on caste identity or indirectly by referring to proxies of caste identity to discriminate against oppressed castes is proscribed under the Constitution. The Constitution permits caste-based classifications only for limited purposes to serve the purpose of promoting equality and social justice. The petitioner in this case sought directions for repeal of the offending provisions relating to caste-based discrimination in the State Prison Manual/Rules as violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23 of the Constitution. It was argued that caste-based discrimination persists in prisons in mainly three aspects: 1. Division of manual labour; 2. Segregation of barracks; and 3. Provisions that discriminate against prisoners belonged to Denotified Tribes and "Habitual Offenders."The Supreme Court has reiterated classification of prisoners has been considered both from the point of view of security, and discipline and as well as reform and rehabilitation. It added: "However, there is no nexus between classifying prisoners based on caste and securing the objectives of security or reforms...Segregating prisoners on the basis of caste would reinforce caste differences or animosity that ought to be prevented at the first place. Segregation would not lead to rehabilitation." Other reports about the judgment can be read here.Case Details: Sukanya Shantha v. UOI & Ors.,WP (C) No. 1404 of 2023 Appearances: Dr. S. Muralidhar, Senior Advocate (for petitioner), Advocates Disha Wadekar; Additional Solicitor General, Aishwarya Bhati.Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

'Separate But Equal' Philosophy Has No Place In Constitution : Supreme Court Rejects View That Caste-Based Segregation Of Prisoners Will Prevent Violence

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags