In a landmark ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court declared caste-based discrimination unconstitutional, prohibiting practices such as the division of manual labor, segregation of barracks, and discrimination against prisoners from de-notified tribes and habitual offenders.

The court struck down the jail manual rules of ten states that perpetuated these biases.

Highlighting that the "right to live with dignity extends even to the incarcerated," a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, noted that "criminal laws of the colonial era continue to impact the postcolonial world."

The bench directed both the Centre and the states to amend their prison manuals and laws within three months and submit compliance reports. It specifically addressed discriminatory provisions in the jail manuals of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Kerala, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Himachal Pradesh, ruling to set them aside.

Citing the right against touchability, the bench stated that Article 17 affirms that all individuals are born equal.

"There cannot be any stigma attached to the existence, touch or presence of any person. By way of Article 17, our Constitution strengthens the equality of status of every citizen...," it said.

Pointing to a specific instance, the bench noted that convicts from communities lower in the caste hierarchy were expected to maintain their customary occupations while incarcerated, effectively replicating the caste hierarchy of the outside world within the prison environment.

"Rules that discriminate among individual prisoners on the basis of their caste specifically or indirectly by referring to proxies of caste identity are violative of Article 14 on account of invalid classification and subversion of substantive equality," it held.

The judgment highlighted that rules designating sweeping duties, which specify that "sweepers shall be chosen from the Mehtar or Hari caste," constitute a form of discrimination. In the 148-page ruling on a public interest litigation filed by journalist Sukanya Shantha, who wrote an article addressing caste-based discrimination in prisons, Chief Justice Chandrachud ordered the removal of the 'caste' column and any references to the caste of undertrials or convicted prisoners from prison registers.

"The right to live with dignity extends even to the incarcerated. Not providing dignity to prisoners is a relic of the colonizers and pre-colonial mechanisms, where oppressive systems were designed to dehumanise and degrade those under the control of the State.

"Authoritarian regimes of the pre-constitutional era saw prisons not only as places of confinement but as tools of domination. This court, focusing on the changed legal framework brought out by the Constitution, has recognised that even prisoners are entitled to the right to dignity," the verdict said.

Emphasizing the fundamental rights to equality, life with dignity, the abolition of untouchability, and the right against slavery, the court asserted that in a post-constitutional society, the law must proactively ensure equal protection for all citizens. The bench underscored that human dignity is both a constitutional value and a constitutional goal.

Citing previous judgments, it stated, "Human dignity is intrinsic to and inseparable from human existence," which encompasses "the right to protection against torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment."

The Chief Justice remarked on the intrinsic connection between dignity and the quality of life, emphasizing that the dignity of human existence is truly fulfilled only when individuals are able to lead a quality life.

"The impugned provisions are declared unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14 (equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 17 (abolition of untouchability), 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and 23 (right against forced labour) of the Constitution. All States and Union Territories are directed to revise their Prison Manuals/Rules in accordance with this judgment within a period of three months," it directed.

The court also directed the Centre to implement necessary changes in the Model Prison Manual, 2016, and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, to address caste-based discrimination, with a deadline of three months for compliance.

"References to 'habitual offenders' in the prison manuals/Model Prison Manual shall be in accordance with the definition provided in the habitual offender legislation enacted by the respective state legislatures, subject to any constitutional challenge against such legislation in the future. All other references or definitions of 'habitual offenders' in the impugned prison manuals/rules are declared unconstitutional," it held.

The court stated that if a state lacks habitual offender legislation, both the Centre and state governments are required to amend their prison manuals in accordance with the judgment.

"The police is directed to follow the guidelines... to ensure that members of denotified tribes are not subjected to arbitrary arrest," it said.

The court also took suo motu cognizance of discrimination within prisons based on factors such as caste, gender, and disability, designating the case as "In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India." It ordered the Centre and states to file compliance reports within three months. Additionally, the verdict mandated that the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) and the Board of Visitors established under the Model Prison Manual conduct regular inspections to determine whether caste-based discrimination or similar practices, as outlined in this judgment, are still occurring within prisons.

"The DLSAs and the Board of Visitors shall submit a joint report of their inspection to the SLSAs (State Legal Services Authorities), which shall compile a common report and forward it to NALSA (National Legal Services Authority), which shall in turn file a joint status report before this court in the above-mentioned suo motu writ petition," it said.