Scribd
Upload
14 views

bansal

The Supreme Court of India ruled in the case of Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India, declaring caste-based discrimination in prisons unconstitutional and calling for systemic reforms to align prison regulations with constitutional values. The judgment emphasizes the need to amend discriminatory provisions in state prison manuals and to redefine terms that unfairly target marginalized communities. This landmark ruling not only addresses caste discrimination within the prison system but also serves as a catalyst for broader societal change towards equality and justice.

Uploaded by

poojabansal2460
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
14 views

bansal

The Supreme Court of India ruled in the case of Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India, declaring caste-based discrimination in prisons unconstitutional and calling for systemic reforms to align prison regulations with constitutional values. The judgment emphasizes the need to amend discriminatory provisions in state prison manuals and to redefine terms that unfairly target marginalized communities. This landmark ruling not only addresses caste discrimination within the prison system but also serves as a catalyst for broader societal change towards equality and justice.

Uploaded by

poojabansal2460
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Here’s the final combined and refined script for the case Sukanya Shantha vs.

Union
of India:

---

Introduction

“Today, I will explain a landmark judgment from the Supreme Court of India
addressing caste-based discrimination in the Indian prison system. The case,
Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India & Ors., was brought forward by a journalist who
highlighted discriminatory practices in Indian prisons through her investigative
article, 'From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison
System,' published in 2020.

This petition, filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, challenges


provisions in state prison manuals that perpetuate caste discrimination and seeks
systemic reforms to align prison regulations with constitutional values. The case
was adjudicated by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr. Dhananjaya Y
Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.”

---

Background

“The petitioner brought to light practices in Indian prisons that blatantly violate
fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. These practices include caste-
based segregation, discriminatory labor assignments, and profiling of certain
communities under outdated legal frameworks. These violations relate to:

1. Article 14: Guaranteeing equality before the law and protection against
arbitrary classification.

2. Article 15: Prohibiting discrimination on grounds such as caste, religion, or


place of birth.

3. Article 17: Abolishing untouchability in all forms.

4. Article 21: Upholding the right to live with dignity, which extends even to
prisoners.

5. Article 23: Prohibiting forced labor, a form of exploitation disproportionately


imposed on marginalized castes.

The petitioner also highlighted the targeting of Denotified Tribes under outdated
laws, such as the Habitual Offenders Act, which reinforces caste-based biases.”

---

Submissions
“The petitioner’s counsel, Dr. S. Muralidhar, argued that caste-based
discrimination in prisons, including segregation and menial labor assignments, is
blatantly unconstitutional. The Model Prison Manual of 2016 was criticized for
inadequately addressing these issues. The counsel further demanded the deletion of
provisions that unfairly target Denotified Tribes and redefine the term 'habitual
offenders' in prison manuals.

In response, the Union of India, represented by the Additional Solicitor General,


highlighted that the Model Prison Manual explicitly prohibits caste or religion-
based discrimination and emphasized that prisons fall under the state list in the
Constitution. The Union cited its advisories urging states to amend discriminatory
provisions in their prison manuals.”

---

Constitutional Interpretation

“The Court invoked the transformative vision of the Constitution to address


systemic caste-based oppression. The key constitutional provisions analyzed were:

1. Article 14: Mandates equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary or
irrational classifications.

2. Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on caste grounds and imposes a duty on the
state to ensure equal treatment.

3. Article 17: Aims to eradicate untouchability and caste hierarchies.

4. Article 21: Recognizes the right to live with dignity, extending to prisoners.

5. Article 23: Protects against forced labor, rooted in historical caste


exploitation.

The judgment emphasized the need for legal frameworks to evolve and dismantle
colonial-era structures that perpetuate caste-based discrimination.”

---

Historical Context of Caste Discrimination in Prisons

“The roots of caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons trace back to colonial


times, with laws such as the Criminal Tribes Act stigmatizing entire communities.
These discriminatory frameworks persisted post-Independence, manifesting in
practices such as segregated barracks and assigning menial tasks to marginalized
castes. Despite the constitutional abolition of untouchability under Article 17,
these practices reflect deep societal biases that continue to influence prison
hierarchies.”

---
Judgment

“The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising
Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, declared caste-based discrimination in
prisons unconstitutional. The Court issued directives to:

1. Amend state prison manuals to remove discriminatory provisions.

2. Align all regulations with the Model Prison Manual of 2016.

3. Redefine terms like 'habitual offenders' to prevent targeting of Denotified


Tribes.

4. Remove references to caste from prison records.

The Court emphasized that caste-based discrimination is a violation of fundamental


rights, marking this judgment as a crucial step toward eradicating
institutionalized inequalities.”

---

Broader Implications

“This judgment carries profound implications for Indian society:

1. Public Awareness: By highlighting systemic casteism in prisons, the judgment


prompts broader societal reflection on caste hierarchies.

2. Civil Society’s Role: Advocacy groups now have a stronger legal foundation to
push for reforms in other institutions.

3. Rehabilitation Focus: Prisons should shift from punitive to rehabilitative


approaches, particularly for marginalized groups.

The judgment not only sets a precedent for addressing caste discrimination in
prisons but also challenges its manifestations across other societal structures.”

---

Challenges and Future Directions

“While the judgment is a landmark, implementing it faces challenges:

1. Institutional Resistance: Entrenched biases among prison authorities could


hinder reforms.

2. Monitoring Compliance: Independent audits are essential to ensure states adhere


to the directives.

3. Training and Awareness: Prison staff must be educated on constitutional values


and the importance of non-discrimination.

Future efforts must focus on creating a rehabilitative prison system, advocating


broader legal reforms to tackle caste-based inequities, and ensuring that the
principles of equality and justice extend to all facets of Indian society.”

---

Conclusion

“The ruling in Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India is a monumental step in


addressing caste-based discrimination in India. It reaffirms the transformative
vision of the Constitution, ensuring that marginalized communities are treated with
dignity and equality. By emphasizing Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23, the judgment
challenges entrenched societal hierarchies and calls for collective efforts to
dismantle caste-based injustices.

This case serves as both a foundation and a call to action for India to move closer
to its constitutional ideals of equality, justice, and human dignity.”

---

Let me know if you'd like additional modifications!

You might also like