“Case Comment on Sukanya Shantha v.

Union of India”

Batch 2024 - 2029

Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad

Legal Writing and Legal Research (2LW101CC24)

Under the guidance of: Submitted By:

I. INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark judgment of Sukanya Shantha v. Union of
India,1 delivered on 3 October 2024, addressed the pervasive issue of caste-based
discrimination within Indian prisons. The Court’s decision, authored by Chief Justice D.Y.
Chandrachud, declared various provisions of State Prison Rules and Manuals unconstitutional
for violating fundamental rights, particularly Article 14, 2 Article 15,3 Article 17,4 Article 21,5
and Article 236 of the Indian Constitution.
The ratio decidendi of the case is that any classification or practice within the prison system
based on caste, social hierarchy, stereotypical notions, or the colonial-era concept of
"criminal tribes" (now denotified tribes) is arbitrary, unreasonable, and directly
discriminatory, thereby violating the constitutional mandate of equality and dignity.
The obiter dicta include the Court taking suo motu cognizance of broader discrimination in
prisons, issuing directions for the Union and State governments to revise manuals, delete
caste references in prisoner records, and implement a robust monitoring mechanism through
Legal Services Authorities and Boards of Visitors to ensure compliance.7
The case originated from a writ petition filed by journalist Sukanya Shantha, whose
investigative article, “From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian
Prison System”8 highlighted systemic discrimination based on caste in prison management
across various Indian states.
II. MAIN ARGUMENTS
1
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 753.
2
India Const. art. 14.
3
India Const. art. 15.
4
India Const. art. 17.
5
India Const. art. 21.
6
India Const. art. 23.
7
Shruti Jagtap & Vaishnavi Dhane, Upholding the Dignity of Prisoners: The Indian Supreme Court’s Stand
Against Caste-based Discrimination in Prisons, Oxford Human Rights Hub (Oct. 23, 2024),
[Link]
based-discrimination-in-prisons/.
8
Sukanya Shantha, From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System, Pulitzer
Center on Crisis Reporting (Dec. 10, 2020), [Link]
law-governs-indian-prison-system.
The main arguments of the Petitioner were that these discriminatory practices, deeply
rooted in outdated colonial-era laws, persisted in prison manuals of numerous states and
violated fundamental rights. Specifically, the petitioner contended that prisoners were
assigned tasks, including menial and degrading duties like scavenging or cooking, based on
their caste identity. For instance, Rule 1117 of the West Bengal Jail Code allowed high-caste
prisoners to refuse food cooked by existing cooks and be appointed as cooks themselves,
while Rule 793 specified "sweepers should be chosen from the Mether or Hari caste".9 Thus,
prison manuals enforced segregation of prisoners based on social hierarchy. Moreover, the
provisions disproportionately targeted members of Denotified Tribes (formerly "criminal
tribes" under colonial laws) by classifying them as "habitual offenders" or having a "strong
natural tendency to escape". For example, Rule 404 of the West Bengal Jail Code
disqualified individuals from "wandering tribes" from being appointed as night guards, and
the Madhya Pradesh Jail Manual included "any member of denotified tribe" as liable to be
classified as a habitual criminal.10 Additionally, the existing Model Prison Manual was
deemed insufficient to address the pervasive caste discrimination.
The Union of India as the Respondent, represented by the Additional Solicitor General,
submitted that the Ministry of Home Affairs had prepared the Model Prison Manuals (2003
and 2016) which explicitly prohibited caste and religion-based discrimination, particularly in
kitchen management and classification. An advisory was also issued to states and Union
Territories in February 2024 to ensure prison manuals did not contain discriminatory
provisions. The State of West Bengal also indicated a proposal to delete/alter discriminatory
rules.

III. LEGAL PROVISIONS AND CASE LAWS

The Supreme Court extensively relied on and interpreted various laws and case laws. The
judgment meticulously applied Article 14,11 highlighting the Principle of Intelligible
Differentia which states that classification must be founded on a reasonable distinction and
have a rational relation to the object sought. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India 12 and
9
NLIU Law Review (Blog), Sukanya Shantha v. UOI: A Laudable Application of the Principle of Intelligible
Differentia, Nov. 12, 2024, NLIU Law Review Online (blog), [Link]
shantha-v-uoi-a-laudable-application-of-the-principle-of-intelligible-differentia/.
10
Id.
11
India Const. art. 14.
12
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India & Ors.,1951 AIR 41.
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali13 established the twin prongs of the test. It also heavily
relied on the evolved understanding of Article 14,14 which encompasses the principle of non-
arbitrariness and manifest arbitrariness, stating that a law can be struck down if it is
"capricious, irrational and/or without adequate determining principle". E.P. Royappa v. State
of Tamil Nadu15 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India16 introduced the principle that equality
is "antithetic to arbitrariness".
Article 1517 was invoked to challenge direct and indirect discrimination based on caste and
gender. Lt. Col. Nitisha v. Union of India18 articulated that facially neutral criteria can lead to
indirect discrimination by disproportionately affecting marginalized groups, and called for a
"systemic analysis of discrimination".
The Court emphasized on Article 1719 to dismantle practices rooted in notions of purity and
pollution, such as caste-based assignments of "menial" tasks. Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Administration20 famously affirmed that prisoners retain fundamental rights and are entitled
to humane treatment and protection against "degrading labour". Article 2121 was crucial, as
the Court affirmed that prisoners retain the "residue of fundamental rights" and the right to
live with dignity, which includes the right to reform and overcome caste barriers.22
Finally, Article 2323 was applied to challenge caste-based forced labour, where individuals
are compelled to perform degrading tasks without choice, often with inadequate
remuneration. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India 24 defined "forced
labour" broadly to include work under compulsion of economic circumstances or for less than
minimum wage. Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police Delhi25 highlighted the
false implication and arbitrary targeting of nomadic/denotified tribes by police, emphasizing
the need for caution in applying labels like "bad character" or "habitual offender".

IV. ANALYSIS, OBSERVATIONS, AND LEARNINGS

13
The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 AIR 75.
14
Id. at 11.
15
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 1974 SCR (2) 348.
16
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 SCR (2) 621.
17
Id. at 3.
18
Nitisha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, 2023 INSC 985.
19
Id. at 4.
20
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Ors. 1980 SCR (2) 557.
21
Id. at 5.
22
Id. at 9.
23
Id. at 6.
24
People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 1983 SCR (1) 456.
25
Amanatullah Khan v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. 2024 INSC 383.
The judgment reveals a profound commitment by the Supreme Court to substantive equality
and human dignity. The Court’s decision meticulously traced the roots of caste-based
discrimination in prisons back to the pre-colonial and colonial eras, demonstrating how the
British administration eventually "reproduced the systems of social hierarchy in their legal
framework" and even directly supported caste oppression in some cases. The Criminal Tribes
Acts stigmatized entire communities as "born criminals".
A significant aspect of the judgment is its expansive interpretation of fundamental rights. The
Court moved beyond a formalistic application of Article 14, employing the doctrine of
manifest arbitrariness to strike down provisions that lacked an "adequate determining
principle" or were "excessive and disproportionate". This approach, coupled with the
recognition of indirect discrimination under Article 15, is critical for addressing subtle yet
pervasive forms of discrimination that may not be overtly casteist but disproportionately
harm marginalized groups.
The judgment's critique of the "habitual offender" classification is particularly insightful. It
recognized that this label, often applied to Denotified Tribes, is "constitutionally suspect" due
to its vague and broad language, perpetuating a colonial-era stereotype that inherently links
certain communities to criminality. This observation is a crucial step towards dismantling the
stigmatization that has plagued Denotified Tribes for centuries, impacting their ability to live
with dignity and integrate into mainstream society.
Furthermore, the Court's assessment of the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons
and Correctional Services Act 2023 highlights that even well-intentioned reform efforts can
fall short if they do not thoroughly address systemic discrimination. The observation that the
Model Manual only explicitly prohibited caste discrimination in women's kitchens, but not
for other work assignments or general prisoner classification, is a stark reminder of the need
for comprehensive, explicit, and proactive measures to prevent discrimination. The directive
to revise these model documents is crucial for ensuring future policy frameworks genuinely
align with constitutional values.
The emphasis on substantive equality, dignity, and rehabilitation for prisoners is a powerful
reaffirmation of India's constitutional vision. Assigning "degrading labour" based on caste not
only violates Article 23 but also "stultifies" a prisoner’s reformation and deprives them of the
opportunity for personal growth and dignified existence.
Finally, the Court's decision to take suo motu cognizance and establish a robust monitoring
mechanism through DLSAs, SLSAs, NALSA, and Boards of Visitors is a commendable step
towards ensuring actual implementation and compliance. 26 This addresses the historical
challenge of non-enforcement of protective legislation and underscores the judiciary's
proactive role in safeguarding fundamental rights. The judgment, therefore, is not merely a
legal pronouncement but a call for a compassionate institutional approach that actively seeks
to dismantle caste-based discrimination and foster an inclusive society, echoing the
aspirations of the Constitution's framers.

26
Id. at 7.