The Supreme Court's decision in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024) marks a significant advancement in the fight against caste-based discrimination within the Indian prison system. This ruling is not only a legal milestone but also a reaffirmation of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
The primary focus of the judgment was to address and eliminate caste-based discrimination in prisons. The court declared that practices such as segregating inmates based on caste hierarchy and assigning work according to caste violate the principles of human dignity and are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court mandated that prison manuals be revised within three months. It ordered the removal of caste references from undertrial and convict registers, emphasizing that the inclusion of caste information is unconstitutional.
The court referenced Article 15(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on various grounds, including caste. The ruling highlighted that state-sponsored discriminatory practices severely undermine this constitutional provision.
The court interpreted the caste-based assignment of prison tasks as forced labor, which is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution. This practice was deemed a violation of multiple constitutional articles, including Articles 14, 15, 17, and 21.
In its judgment, the court acknowledged the relevance of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. This act also applies within prisons, prohibiting any coercion of marginalized castes to perform manual scavenging.
The ruling condemned the historical labeling of de-notified tribes as “born criminals.” The court stated that such stigmatization constitutes a form of caste-based discrimination, infringing on the constitutional rights to equality and dignity.
The judgment identified several constitutional provisions violated by caste-based labor division in prisons:
The Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024) ruling underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental rights. The Supreme Court's decision emphasizes that state institutions must actively uphold these rights, particularly within prisons, thereby reinforcing the importance of dignity and equality for all individuals.
Q1. What was the main issue in the Sukanya Shantha case?
Answer: The case focused on caste-based discrimination in prisons, specifically the segregation of inmates and assignment of work based on caste, which violates constitutional rights.
Q2. What did the Supreme Court direct regarding prison manuals?
Answer: The court mandated the revision of prison manuals, including the removal of caste references from records and prohibiting caste-based job assignments.
Q3. How does the judgment relate to Article 15 of the Constitution?
Answer: The ruling emphasizes that the state's discriminatory practices violate Article 15, which prohibits discrimination based on caste and other grounds.
Q4. What impact does the ruling have on manual scavenging in prisons?
Answer: The judgment affirms that the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 applies in prisons, making coercion for manual scavenging unconstitutional.
Q5. Why is the ruling significant for de-notified tribes?
Answer: The Supreme Court condemned the historical labeling of de-notified tribes as “born criminals,” reaffirming their rights to equality and dignity under the Constitution.
Question 1: What was the primary focus of the Supreme Court's judgment in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India?
A) Prohibition of manual scavenging
B) Caste-based discrimination in prisons
C) Prison reform measures
D) Fundamental rights enforcement
Correct Answer: B
Question 2: Which Article prohibits discrimination based on caste in India?
A) Article 14
B) Article 15
C) Article 17
D) Article 23
Correct Answer: B
Question 3: What does Article 23 of the Constitution prohibit?
A) Caste-based segregation
B) Forced labor
C) Discrimination
D) Untouchability
Correct Answer: B
Kutos : AI Assistant!
