Introduction
The Report of the Inspector of Prisons at Lucknow Central Jail in 1862 records an instance where the treatment of prisoners was prejudiced by caste discrimination, to the extent that the Brahman inmates were allowed to mark the area to receive their food, where no inmate from other caste was allowed to enter. This relic of the caste-based discrimination in prison has been recorded by the Supreme Court of India (“SC”) in the recent judgment of Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, where various provisions of Prison Rules and Manuals of numerous states were struck down, on the grounds of being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (“Constitution”). The judgment recognises the institutionalized discrimination that has been meted out to prisoners based on their social hierarchy, which is against the mandate of equality under the Constitution. The Article 14 of the Constitution provides for the equal administration of law and similar treatment of persons similarly situated. Generally, when a legislation is said to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is said with regards to the classification it makes between the persons concerned with the statute. Thus, any classification under any law must not violate the principle of equality; it must be reasonable and non-arbitrary to the persons affected by it. The Principle of Intelligible Differentia (“Principle”) is one of the benchmarks administered by courts to check whether a legislation violates the protection of equality. This piece explores the application of the principle in the judgment and evaluates the failure of the impugned Prison Rules and Manuals against this safeguard of fundamental right to equality.
Principle of Intelligible Differentia
The principle of Intelligible Differentia is a test to determine whether the classification made by a statute stands in line, or contrast with the mandate of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Benefit as a result of a statute making a distinction between two groups of people is permitted, and no law intending to benefit the marginalized community can do so without making a classification. Whenever a statute is challenged on the grounds of the discriminatory nature of a classification it makes, the test of reasonable classification is employed. The test of Intelligible Differentia is the parameter to test such reasonable classification. The test had been put to use in various judgements like, Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India,where a law passing control of an industrial company, manufacturing essential commodities was alleged to discriminate against the shareholders of the company. The SC ruled that any classification that makes categorizations must rely on a reasonable distinction between the included and the excluded, and the classification must have a substantial basis to fulfil the objective sought.
The Principle of Intelligible Differentia found its concrete form inState of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali, where the two prongs of the test (“Test”) were clearly asserted. The SC remarked that any classification alleged to have violated the right to equality under Article 14 must stand strong against the test of reasonableness; firstly, the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others who are left out, and secondly, that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the concerned Act.
The use of the principle requires adjudging the effect on the strata experiencing the brunt and benefit of the legislation as well as the objective sought to be achieved through the classification. The classification cannot be arbitrary; there must be a purpose or an intent in mind while segregating two groups of people and such purpose must not be unfair, illogical or unjust. While a statute may have made an intelligible classification which was non-arbitrary, but in case the object pursued by that statute is bad in law, it cannot be permitted under Article 14. Hence, the prongs of the test require both, the classification and the statue in question to be evaluated.
Do the Prison Manuals satisfy the standards of intelligible differentia?
The prison manuals used to set directions in various prisons throughout India. include overt instances and perpetuity of caste-based classification ranging from the protocol of defecation to cooking food for the prisoners. Rule 1117 of the West Bengal Jail Code says “Any prisoner in a jail who is of so high a caste that he cannot eat food cooked by the existing cooks shall be appointed a cook and be made to cook for the full complement of men.” Rule 404 of the West Bengal Jail Code states qualifications for the eligibility of a convict overseer for appointment as a night guard, which includes as a prerequisite, “ that he does not belong to any class that may have a strong natural tendency to escape, such as men of wandering tribes…”.
Rule 289(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, 2022 provides: “A convict sentenced to simple imprisonment … shall not be called upon to perform duties of a degrading or menial character unless he belongs to a class or community accustomed to perform such duties;…” Various manuals and rules are in force across the country in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, West Bengal and others.
What is common in all these manuals and rules is the presence of caste, class or unproved criminal antecedents as a segregating factor. While caste can be used as the basis of classification when ensuring equality between unequals, as held in Indira Sawhney v. UOI, the path is fraught with hurdles. While applying the test to the validity of the impugned rules, the SC held that the classification of interaction in prisons on the basis of caste, prevailing customs and basis, was not intelligible but vague and arbitrary. Such a classification not only tends to benefit a particular caste over the others, in terms of amenities and access but also reaffirms the distinction of social class that convicts bring to prison post-conviction. For example, the classification that a convict from the Brahman community should not eat food made by someone from a lower class, and a cook should be employed to honour their caste prejudice makes no reasonable sense, other than appeasing caste prejudices of the community, and is arbitrary at best. Hence, the distinction does not satisfy the first prong of the Test.
As far as the rational nexus with the objective of the manuals is concerned, the impugned provisions come out negatively. The SC has held that caste-based classification does not correspond with the intent of the rules, which would make sense if the segregation catered to psychological needs, work aptitude or medical needs, for instance. The object of Prison Rules and Manuals is the reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners, to guide them to live a life distant from crime and make them fit to be a part of civil society again. Such an intent cannot be fulfilled if the prisoners are subject to casteist norms which determine the kind of duties they can perform. Further, in Phul Singh v. State of Haryana, it was held that in-prison treatment should be structured in a way that aids the “restoration of self-respect and cultural normalization”. Caste, which makes a societal distinction, cannot be made a prerequisite for the ability or the disability to perform certain kind of intra-mural work, especially when each task is aimed at the process of rehabilitation as well as a positive mental reconstruction of the prisoner instead of satisfaction of societal prejudice. Hence, there exists no rational nexus or relation between the casteist classification and the reformative object of the impugned Prison Rules and Manuals. Consequently, the classification also fails the second prong of the Test of a valid classification. Therefore, the SC has validly held that the impugned rules violate the constitutional fabric of Article 14, by making a discriminatory classification between prisoners.
Conclusion
In the present scenario, where caste was used as a means to govern how prisoners interact and spend their sentences, it was necessary to put the impugned provisions to the axe of the test. The SC in State of A.P. v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy, rightly remarked that a prisoner still retains the residue of fundamental rights and is constitutionally empowered to preserve the same. Hence, the access to equality in treatment at prisons cannot be trampled even when a person is imprisoned.
The case at hand brings to light the perpetual normalization of caste as a method of segregation in prisons. Thus, the usage of caste in differentiating the conduct and the day-to-day interaction of prisoners was very much necessitating a check. Such classification that threatens the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 must be adjudged against the strictest yardstick available and the test of Intelligible differentia does the job quite well. The protection provided by Article 14 would stand decimated if such discriminatory provisions continue to be in force. Hence, the decision of the SC is a welcome change to the lives of the imprisoned.
This blog is written by Kartikey Tripathi, 2nd Year Student at RGNUL, Punjab.