NLR BLOG

B Y N L I U L AW R E V I E W

Sukanya Shantha V. UOI: A Laudable Application of the Principle of

Intelligible Di!erentia
Kartikey Tripathi November 12, 2024

Introduction

The Report of the Inspector of Prisons at Lucknow Central Jail in 1862 records an instance where the treatment of
prisoners was prejudiced by caste discrimination, to the extent that the Brahman inmates were allowed to mark the area
to receive their food, where no inmate from other caste was allowed to enter. This relic of the caste-based
discrimination in prison has been recorded by the Supreme Court of India (“SC”) in the recent judgment
([Link] of
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, where various provisions of Prison Rules and Manuals of numerous states
were struck down, on the grounds of being violative of Article 14 ([Link] of
the Constitution of India (“Constitution”). The judgment recognises the institutionalized discrimination that has
been meted out to prisoners based on their social hierarchy, which is against the mandate of equality
([Link]
under the Constitution. The Article 14 of the Constitution provides for the equal administration of law and similar
treatment of persons similarly situated. Generally, when a legislation is said to be in violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution, it is said with regards to the classi"cation it makes between the persons concerned with the statute. Thus,
any classi"cation under any law must not violate ([Link]
formInput=not%20violative%20of%20Article%2014%20of%20Constitution%20) the principle of equality; it must be
reasonable and non-arbitrary ([Link] to the persons a#ected by it. The Principle
of Intelligible Di#erentia (“Principle”) is one of the benchmarks administered by courts to check whether a legislation
violates the protection of equality. This piece explores the application of the principle in the judgment and evaluates
the failure of the impugned Prison Rules and Manuals against this safeguard of fundamental right to equality.

Principle of Intelligible Di!erentia

The principle of Intelligible Di#erentia is a test to determine whether the classi"cation made by a statute stands in line,
or contrast with the mandate of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Bene"t as a result of a statute making a distinction
between two groups of people is permitted ([Link] and no law intending to bene"t
the marginalized community can do so without making a classi"cation. Whenever a statute is challenged on the
grounds of the discriminatory nature of a classi"cation it makes, the test of reasonable classi"cation is employed. The
test of Intelligible Di#erentia is the parameter to test such reasonable classi"cation. The test had been put to use in
various judgements like, Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India
([Link] a law passing control of an industrial company, manufacturing
essential commodities was alleged to discriminate against the shareholders of the company. The SC ruled that any
classi"cation that makes categorizations must rely on a reasonable distinction between the included and the excluded,
and the classi"cation must have a substantial basis to ful"l the objective sought.

The Principle of Intelligible Di#erentia found its concrete form inState of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali
([Link] where the two prongs of the test (“Test”) were clearly asserted. The SC
remarked that any classi"cation alleged to have violated the right to equality under Article 14 must stand strong against
the test of reasonableness; !rstly, the classi"cation must be founded on an intelligible di#erentia, which distinguishes
those that are grouped together from others who are left out, and secondly, that that di#erentia must have a rational
relation to the object sought to be achieved by the concerned Act.

The use of the principle requires adjudging the e#ect on the strata experiencing the brunt and bene"t of the legislation
as well as the objective sought to be achieved through the classi"cation. The classi"cation cannot be arbitrary; there
must be a purpose or an intent in mind while segregating two groups of people and such purpose must not be unfair,
illogical or unjust ([Link] While a statute may have made an intelligible
classi"cation which was non-arbitrary, but in case the object pursued by that statute is bad in law, it cannot be
permitted under Article 14 ([Link] Hence, the prongs of the test require
both, the classi"cation and the statue in question to be evaluated.

Do the Prison Manuals satisfy the standards of intelligible di!erentia?

The prison manuals used to set directions in various prisons throughout India. include overt instances and perpetuity
of caste-based classi"cation ranging from the protocol of defecation to cooking food for the prisoners. Rule 1117 of the
West Bengal Jail Code ([Link] says “Any prisoner in a jail who is of so high a
caste 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.” Rule 404 of the West Bengal Jail Code ([Link] states
quali"cations for the eligibility of a convict overseer for appointment as a night guard, which includes as a prerequisite,
“ that he does not belong to any class that may have a strong natural tendency to escape, such as men of wandering
tribes…”.

Rule 289(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, 2022

([Link] provides: “A convict
sentenced to simple imprisonment … shall not be called upon to perform duties of a degrading or menial character unless he
belongs to a class or community accustomed to perform such duties;…” Various manuals and rules are in force across the
country ([Link]
unconstitutional-124100300941_1.html) in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, West
Bengal and others.
What is common in all these manuals and rules is the presence of caste, class or unproved criminal antecedents as a
segregating factor. While caste can be used as the basis of classi"cation when ensuring equality between unequals, as
held in Indira Sawhney v. UOI ([Link]
sawhney-part-
ii/#:~:text=Essentially%2C%20the%20issue%20before%20the,above%20questions%20in%20the%20negative), the path
is fraught with hurdles. While applying the test to the validity of the impugned rules, the SC held
([Link] that
the classi"cation of interaction in prisons on the basis of caste, prevailing customs and basis, was not intelligible but
vague and arbitrary. Such a classi"cation not only tends to bene"t a particular caste over the others, in terms of
amenities and access but also rea$rms the distinction of social class that convicts bring to prison post-conviction. For
example, the classi"cation that a convict from the Brahman community should not eat food made by someone from a
lower class, and a cook should be employed to honour their caste prejudice makes no reasonable sense, other than
appeasing caste prejudices of the community, and is arbitrary at best. Hence, the distinction does not satisfy the "rst
prong of the Test.

As far as the rational nexus with the objective of the manuals is concerned, the impugned provisions come out
negatively. The SC has held
([Link] that
caste-based classi"cation does not correspond with the intent of the rules, which would make sense if the segregation
catered to psychological needs, work aptitude or medical needs, for instance. The object of Prison Rules and Manuals is
the reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners, to guide them to live a life distant from crime and make them "t to be a
part of civil society again. Such an intent cannot be ful"lled if the prisoners are subject to casteist norms which
determine the kind of duties they can perform. Further, in Phul Singh v. State of Haryana
([Link] it was held that in-prison treatment should be structured in a way that aids
the “restoration of self-respect and cultural normalization”. Caste, which makes a societal distinction, cannot be made
a prerequisite for the ability or the disability to perform certain kind of intra-mural work, especially when each task is
aimed at the process of rehabilitation as well as a positive mental reconstruction of the prisoner instead of satisfaction
of societal prejudice. Hence, there exists no rational nexus or relation between the casteist classi"cation and the
reformative object of the impugned Prison Rules and Manuals. Consequently, the classi"cation also fails the second
prong of the Test of a valid classi"cation. Therefore, the SC has validly held that the impugned rules violate the
constitutional fabric of Article 14, by making a discriminatory classi"cation between prisoners.

Conclusion

In the present scenario, where caste was used as a means to govern how prisoners interact and spend their sentences, it
was necessary to put the impugned provisions to the axe of the test. The SC in State of A.P. v. Challa Ramkrishna
Reddy ([Link] rightly remarked that a prisoner still retains the residue of
fundamental rights and is constitutionally empowered to preserve the same. Hence, the access to equality in treatment
at prisons cannot be trampled even when a person is imprisoned.

The case at hand brings to light the perpetual normalization of caste as a method of segregation in prisons. Thus, the
usage of caste in di#erentiating the conduct and the day-to-day interaction of prisoners was very much necessitating a
check. Such classi"cation that threatens the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 must be adjudged against
the strictest yardstick available and the test of Intelligible di#erentia does the job quite well. The protection provided by
Article 14 would stand decimated if such discriminatory provisions continue to be in force. Hence, the decision of the
SC is a welcome change to the lives of the imprisoned.

This blog is written by Kartikey Tripathi, 2nd Year Student at RGNUL, Punjab.

([Link]
([Link]

MORE BLOGS

([Link]
incentives-regulatory-riddles/)
SEBI’s Tightrope ESOP Walk: Balancing IPO Reforms, Founder Incentives & Regulatory Riddles
([Link]
incentives-regulatory-riddles/)
April 30, 2025

([Link]
between-cci-and-ercs/)
Regulatory Gridlock: Harmonizing Jurisdictional Overlaps between CCI and ERCs
([Link]
cci-and-ercs/)
April 16, 2025

([Link]
perspective/)
SEBI’s Crackdown on Fin%uencers: A Legal and Regulatory Perspective
([Link]
perspective/)
 perspective/)
April 16, 2025

([Link]
retrospectively-amends-section-17-of-the-cgst-act/)
Fallout of the Safari Retreats Judgment: Finance Bill Retrospectively Amends Section 17 of the CGST Act
([Link]
amends-section-17-of-the-cgst-act/)
April 16, 2025

([Link]
india/)
“FRAND Theft Auto”: Navigating Standard Essential Patents in India
([Link]
April 16, 2025

([Link]
rules-2025/)
Tall Walls, Long Shadows: Data Localisation in the Draft DPDP Rules 2025
([Link]
2025/)
February 17, 2025

([Link]
india/)
india/)
Rede"ning Dividend Taxation: A GST-inspired Framework for India
([Link]
February 17, 2025

([Link]
of-technicalities/)
Forensics, Fairness, and Failure: The NDPS Act’s Relentless Pursuit of Technicalities
([Link]
technicalities/)
February 7, 2025

([Link]
act-and-the-need-for-smarter-antitrust-enforcement/)
Beyond Bargains: The Hidden Dangers of India’s Competition Act and the Need for Smarter Antitrust
Enforcement ([Link]
competition-act-and-the-need-for-smarter-antitrust-enforcement/)
February 7, 2025

([Link]
data-protection-framework/)
Protecting Privacy in the Digital Age: A Critical Look at India’s Data Protection Framework
([Link]
protection-framework/)
February 7, 2025