Published On: 7th October 2026
Authored By: Catherine Joshy
De Montfort University, Dubai
Case Details
- Case Title: Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors.
- Citation: [2024] 10 SCR 493: 2024 INSC 753
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud (CJI), J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, JJ
- Date of Judgment: 3 October 2024
- Relevant Statutes/ Provisions: Constitution of India, Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23; State Prison Manuals; Model Prison Manual 2016; Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023.[1]
Brief Facts
The petitioner, Sukanya Shantha, an investigative journalist, wrote an article titled ‘From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System’, published on 10 December 2020, exposing how prison manuals in several Indian States still made prisoners work and live according to their caste.[2]
She filed a public interest writ petition asking the Supreme Court to strike down the infringing provisions. Relying on a comparative chart of rules drawn from prison manuals across the country, she identified three persisting issues. First, manual labour such as cooking, cleaning and sweeping were being assigned according to a prisoner’s caste; second, prison barracks were segregated along caste lines; and finally, there were provisions that used the label “habitual offender” to target members of Denotified Tribes, who were branded “criminal tribes” under a repealed colonial-era law.[3]
The Union of India and several States, including West Bengal, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, appeared before the Court. They accepted that some discriminatory rules existed on paper but claimed these had fallen out of use in practice and were being revised.[4]
Issues
- Whether provisions of State Prison Manuals that allocate labour and duties based on caste violate the rights to equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. [5]
- Whether assigning “menial” work (sweeping, scavenging) to marginalised-caste prisoners while reserving “superior” work (cooking) for higher castes amounts to “untouchability”, absolutely prohibited under Article 17.
- Whether the caste-based barrack segregation violates the right to life and dignity under Article 21.
- Whether forcing prisoners of marginalised castes to perform degrading labour without choice amounts to “forced labour” prohibited by Article 23.
- Whether treating entire communities from Denotified Tribes as “habitual offenders”, without reference to individual conduct, is constitutionally valid.[6]
Arguments
Petitioner’s arguments:
State prison manuals openly reserve cleaning, sweeping and scavenging work for “lower” castes and cooking for “higher” castes, and permit segregation of barracks by caste, are in breach of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23.[7] The Model Prison Manual 2016 does not meaningfully address caste discrimination beyond the kitchen, and therefore does not live up to its “model” status. The term “habitual offender” is used as a disguised proxy to continue targeting Denotified and wandering tribes, and the Home Departments of the States should be directed to align this definition with validly enacted legislation.[8]
Respondent’s arguments:
The Union and various state respondents argued that prison administration requires broad discretion to secure discipline. The segregation of barracks was a defensive, administrative measure to prevent violent communal clashes.[9] The Union contended that the Ministry of Home Affairs had circulated the Model Prison Manual in 2016 to address discrimination. [10]However, since “Prisons” is a state subject under Entry 4 of the State List, individual states retain legislative competence to manage their jail manuals based on local security conditions.[11]
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, delivering a unanimous judgment, the Bench held that caste-based provisions found across State Prison Manuals were unconstitutional and required urgent revision.
Rejection of ‘Separate but Equal’:
The Court overruled the Madras High Court’s judgment in C. Arul v. The Secretary to Government (2014), which accepted caste-based segregation as a valid security measure.[12] The Court held that maintaining order cannot occur at the altar of fundamental rights. This logic mirrors arguments historically used in the United States to defend racial segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine, which has absolutely no place under the Indian Constitution.[13]
Direct and Indirect Discrimination:
The Court established that manuals practice both direct and indirect discrimination. Direct discrimination allocates tasks openly based on caste, while indirect discrimination uses seemingly neutral terms like “menial work” performed by castes “accustomed” to such duties. This language reinforces occupational immobility and oppresses marginalized groups.[14]
Untouchability and Forced Labor:
The Court ruled that the notion that an occupation is “degrading or menial” is an aspect of untouchability under Article 17. Dividing labor, where cooking is done by upper castes and sweeping by scavenger classes, institutionalizes untouchability. Furthermore, compelling marginalized inmates to perform these tasks based on birth status constitutes forced labor under Article 23. [15]
Right to Overcome Caste Prejudices:
The Court held that Article 21 implicitly includes the “right to overcome caste prejudices” as part of the right to life. Institutional settings must not hinder personal growth or reinforce social constraints. Article 21 guarantees inmates the freedom to break free from traditional restrictions and flourish in dignity.
Ratio Decidendi
Prison Manuals or Rules that classify, segregate, or allocate labour among prisoners on the basis of caste, whether directly or through caste-coded proxies such as “habitual offender”, “menial” work, or “superior mode of living”, violate Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23 of the Constitution and are void. Classification of prisoners must be based solely on each individual’s correctional needs, never on identity.[16]
Obiter Dicta
The Court described the Constitution as an “emancipatory” and “social” document that displaced India’s caste-based hierarchical order, and emphasised the judiciary’s role as guardian of substantive equality.[17] It stressed the importance of Legal Services Authorities and Boards of Visitors in safeguarding prisoners’ rights, and directed the police to follow the arrest safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar and Amanatullah Khan v Commissioner of Police, Delhi to prevent arbitrary arrest of Denotified Tribe members.[18]
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition filed by Sukanya Shantha, and declared the challenged caste-based provisions to be unconstitutional and directed that:
- States must amend Prison Manuals within three months to eradicate all casteist provisions.[19]
- The Union must remove caste references from Model Prison Acts. [20]
- The “caste” column in prisoner registers must be deleted immediately. [21]
- DLSA and Board of Visitors must jointly conduct regular inspections. [22]
- Police must follow Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)to prevent arbitrary arrests of DNT members. [23]
- The Court took suo moto cognizance under In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in Indiato monitor compliance. [24]
Bibliography
Cases:
- Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar [2014] 8 SCR 128: 2014 INSC 463; Sukanya Shantha (n1) [231v].
- Arul v. The Secretary to Government WP(MD) No 6013 of 2014(Madras High Court, 2014)
- Sukanya Shantha v Union of India & Ors [2024] 10 SCR 493 : 2024 INSC 753 (SC).
[1] Sukanya Shantha v Union of India & Ors [2024] 10 SCR 493 : 2024 INSC 753 (SC).
[2] Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [1].
[3] Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [1]-[2].
[4] Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [1], [3]–[4].
[5] Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [164].
[6]Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [213].
[7]Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [2].
[8] Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [229].
[9] Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [231(i)].
[10] Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [231(ii)].
[11] Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [231 (iv)].
[12] C. Arul v. The Secretary to Government WP(MD) No 6013 of 2014(Madras High Court, 2014); Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [167].
[13] Sukanya Shantha (n1) [167].
[14] Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [196].
[15] Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [164].
[16]Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [196].
[17]Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [14]–[15], [17], [23].
[18]Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [220], [227], [231(v)].
[19] Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [231(i)].
[20] Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [231(ii)].
[21] Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [231 (iv)].
[22] Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [231(viii)].
[23] Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar [2014] 8 SCR 128: 2014 INSC 463; Sukanya Shantha (n1) [231v].
[24] Sukanya Shantha (n 1) [231(vi)].
