About the Author: Anjali Sharma is a Student of the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala.
INTRODUCTION
In the case of Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India and Others (2024), the Supreme Court of India knocked down many portions of various jail manuals that upheld caste-based discrimination and deemed them unconstitutional. A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud found violations of Articles 14, 15, 17, and 21 of the Constitution in its decision. This ruling is an important step toward addressing the degree to which caste and criminality overlap, as well as an investigation into the historical settings that have backed such discriminatory practices, particularly those involving de-notified tribes.
KEY FINDINGS OF THE JUDGMENT
The 2020 petitioners’ findings mentioned continued caste-based behaviours documented in prison guidelines. This viewpoint was revealed to be discriminatory in three ways.
- Within prisons, labour is divided.
- Barracks were segregated by caste.
- Habitual offenders will be targeted, with a particular emphasis on tribes that have not been notified.
The Supreme Court overruled these regulations, giving all states and union territories dates to amend their jail manuals. District Legal Services Authorities and Boards of Visitors were used as oversight mechanisms under this directive, with compliance reports filed with the National Legal Service Authority. Most importantly, the Court acknowledged the referenced larger caste logic, which was repeated in the present-day symptomatology within the police and prison systems, disproportionately harming the weakest parts of society.
CASTE AND CRIMINALITY: A HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The judgment surveys the history of caste discrimination in the law from the pre-colonial through the colonial eras. One its critiques is of the colonial-era Criminal Tribes Act, which marked entire populations as being pronounced criminal by natural thought or inclination. Even if off the statutory books post-independence, it carried the legacy of past practices curtailing de-notified tribes’ rights under the duress of ‘habitual offenders’. Such references to these groups in the prison manuals of several states, including UP, West Bengal, and Tamil Nadu, underline stereotypical descriptions, that is, ‘wandering tribes’ – that they would escape.
The decision acknowledges these arguments and urges for a comprehensive strategy that addresses the role that policing plays in pushing for such discriminatory behaviours. Constructs like ‘habitual offenders’ in police are the result of procedures that perpetuate caste hierarchies. Prisons just become actors that replicate such biases.
ON DELETING THE CASTE COLUMN: A CONTROVERSIAL STEP
The removal of the caste column from jail registrations has been one of the most contentious issues in this case. This proposition was proposed by an intervener rather than the petitioners themselves. The rationale for the above in the judgment has been scrutinized, with issues raised regarding its impact on anti-discrimination initiatives. Detractors argue that caste data demonstrates the systemic overrepresentation of underprivileged communities in prisons and that deleting it may constitute an impediment to addressing caste-based injustices.
Caste data has been utilized for academic research, policymaking, and advocacy. For example, oppressed communities, especially de-notified tribes, have been identified as receiving more prison time, even though members of this caste are sometimes classified as SC, ST, or OBC. Lack of this, independent inquiries, and subsequent actions may face delays in ameliorating consequences.
MONITORING AND POLICING: STRUCTURAL ISSUES
This decision highlights arbitrary police practices, such as the keeping of a history of ‘habitual offenders.’ Following precedents established in the cases of Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2014) and Amanatullah Khan v Commissioner of Police, Delhi (2024), the Court endorsed the restriction as to arbitrary discretionary powers. In Arnesh Kumar, the Supreme Court set curbs on arbitrary arrest for minor offenses. In the same vein, Amanatullah Khan issued rulings requiring tougher standards for history sheets and proposing audits to prevent unfair treatment of de-notified tribes. However, this decision falls short of addressing the underlying causes of such monitoring practices, which stem from policing’s embedded caste biases.
State police policies frequently reinforce such biases. For example, the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations emphasize the surveillance of “criminal tribes,” authorizing investigators to collect vast details and maintain criminal records with broad discretion. Such methods propagate preconceptions and stigmatize entire populations, necessitating more stringent judicial and institutional involvement.
TOWARDS ACCOUNTABILITY: A BROADER MANDATE
The Court’s orders are significant efforts toward eradicating caste-based discrimination inside prison systems. However, as in all similar instances, there is an immediate need to develop systems that highlight accountability and encourage the implementation of an accurate monitoring structure. It is also relevant to see earlier similar decisions from various High Courts:
1. Omprakash v State of Rajasthan (2023): This is a decision that sets down standards regarding how history sheets should be preserved, especially with minimum flooring of convictions and cases.
2. Thirumagan v Superintendent of Police, Madurai (2020): The Madras High Court imposed restrictions on the use of history sheets, called for district-level review committees in history sheet cases, and emphasized compensation for wrongful detention.
3. Udathu Suresh v State of Andhra Pradesh (2022): The Andhra Pradesh High Court declared invasive surveillance unlawful. These decisions establish necessary procedures for maintaining history sheets while limiting policing discretion.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE REFORM
The Supreme Court decision is a significant admission of the caste logic that underpins India’s criminal judicial system. Even so, it will only be effective if the implementation is supported by a strong system of oversight. The Court’s suo motu action in this case provides an excellent chance to build the instruments necessary to effectively rein in all systemic discrimination.
MOVING FORWARD, THE COURT MUST DIRECT ITS FOCUS TOWARD
- Policing techniques that foster caste-based biases.
- Institutional measures beyond those of audit mechanisms for accountability.
- Anti-discrimination frameworks in law enforcement and the penal system are being strengthened.
- Dealing with them will empower the judiciary to eliminate caste-based inequities established in India’s criminal justice system and allow society to begin an equitable existence.
References:
- Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project, Counter Mapping Pandemic Policing: A Study of Sanctioned Violence in Madhya Pradesh (2020) <https://cpaproject.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Countermapping-Pandemic-Policing-CPAProject.pdf>
- Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project, Drunkon Power: A Study of Excise Policing in Madhya Pradesh (2021)
- Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project, Wildlife Policing: The Reign of Criminalization in the Forests of Madhya Pradesh (2023) <https://cpaproject.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/WPA-FINAL-DRAFT.pdf>
- Satish Deshpande, ‘Caste and Castelessness: Towards a Biography of the ‘General Category’’ (2013) 48 Economic & Political Weekly 15
- Christophe Jaffrelot, India’s Silent Revolution: Rise of the Lower Castes in North India (Columbia University Press 2003)
- Mukul Kumar, ‘Relationship of Caste and Crime in Colonial India: A Discourse Analysis’ (2004) 39 Economic & Political Weekly 10; Sukanya Shantha, ‘From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System’ (Wire, 3 October 2024) <https://thewire.in/caste/india-prisons-caste-laboursegregation>
- Sukanya Shantha, ‘Why the SC’s Direction to Remove “Caste” Columns from Prison Registers Could Lead to Problems’ (Wire, 9 October 2024) <https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-caste-columnprison-sukanya-shantha>; Nikita Sonavane, ‘Deconstructing Police Discretion as Brahminism’ (2023) 19 Socio-Legal Review 52.