Colonial rulers imported caste-based allocation of prison labor under pressure from oppressive castes: Supreme Court

In a landmark judgment declaring caste discrimination in Indian prisons illegal and unconstitutional, the Supreme Court revisited the history of how the colonial administrator adopted discriminatory social practices in British India so as not to upset the oppressive castes.

The Court has also initiated a suo moto procedure to ensure that prisons across India comply with this judgment.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India, Dr. DY Chandrahud, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra recalled that caste was used as a classification factor in prisons in British India.

It stated that this began with the Prison Discipline 1836-1838, which stated that a man of the ‘upper caste’ cannot be forced to work in any occupation as this would ‘disgrace him and his family and if would be considered cruelty.

The Court said: “Convicts from communities lower down the caste hierarchy were expected to continue their usual activities in prison. The caste hierarchy outside the prison was repeated inside the prison.“

The committee’s recommendations to include a communal dining hall in lieu of food allowances for prisoners to prepare their meals, which was a greater caste accommodation, were shelved. However, in the 1840s, prisoners were given food allowances and could prepare their own meals, while respecting their caste practices, the Court said. T

The Court said: “To replace this, a stricter mess system was introduced in some prisons. However, the prisoners were divided along caste lines and each group was assigned a different prisoner cook.”

How the British fostered a caste-based system in prisons

The Court noted that colonial administrators linked caste to prison management of labor, food, and treatment of prisoners. It said: “They reinforced the occupational hierarchy with legal policies and imported the vice of caste-based allocation of prison labor under pressure from the oppressive castes.“

The Court points to an example and states: “An 1862 report by the Inspector of Prisons at Oudh revealed that these prejudices were fostered in the Lucknow Central Prison to such an extent that Brahmin prisoners were allowed to bathe before eating and were allowed to demarcate a designated area where they would receive their food and where no one was allowed to enter.”

Another example referred to by the court: “Similarly, the Madras Jail Manual, 1899, stated that “In allocating labor to convicts, reasonable account shall be taken of caste prejudice, for example, no Brahmin or caste Hindu shall be employed in the work of snickers (cobblers). However, care must be taken to ensure that caste prejudice does not become an excuse for avoiding hard forms of labor.”“

The Court referred to David Arnold, who in ‘Working for the Raj: Convict Work Regimes in Colonial India writes: “The British were particularly wary at this point because of the intense resistance to common mess in North Indian prisons in the 1840s and 1850s, which, by denying high-caste prisoners the right to cook their own food, fiercely provoked prison demonstrations and contributed to the hasty demonstrations. prison escapes during the opening stages of the 1857–58 rebellion.”

Caste and habitual offenders

The Indian Jail Committee Report of 1919-20 suggested that classification in prisons should ensure that the young and inexperienced offenders were not contaminated by the influence of the more experienced, ordinary offenders. The Court stated that classification and the resulting segregation were primarily considered essential as a means of achieving good prison administration.

However, the classification was based on ‘caste’. The Court noted: “The nature of the manuals can be inferred from Article 825 of the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, 1941, which stated: “The Superintendent shall not impose the punishment of whipping on a convict of a higher class except with the prior consent of the State Government.”

Article 719 provided“Reasonable respect will be shown in all matters to the religious scruples and caste prejudices of the prisoners, so far as is consistent with discipline..””

Caste discrimination continues even after independence

The Court noted that caste discrimination continued even after independence. For reference, it referred to Articles 37 and 67 of the Rajasthan Prison Rules, 1951.

Article 37 read: “Separate bins for solid and liquid excreta will be provided in all latrines and their use will be fully explained by members to all prisoners. The Mehtars shall place a layer of dry earth at least one inch thick in each solid excrement container before it is used, and each prisoner, after using a container, shall cover his excrement with a shovel of dry earth. The urinary vessels should be one-third full of water.”

Article 67 provided: “The cooks belong to the non-ordinary class. Any Brahmin or Hindu prisoner of sufficiently high caste from this class is eligible for appointment as a cook. All prisoners who object to eating food prepared by the existing cooks due to high caste will be appointed cooks and will have to cook for the full complement of men. Individual criminal prisoners are not allowed to cook for themselves under any circumstances.“

Finally, in 1987, the RK Kapoor Commission highlighted the inadequacy of classification and segregation in prisons. The report noted that the division into smaller groups was not systematic. It advised: “The recommendations of the classification committee should broadly fall under two heads: (a) classification with regard to safety and control, and (b) classification from the point of view of correction, reform and rehabilitation. After studying a prisoner in detail and making its assessment, the classification committee should make recommendations on the following points relating to his needs.”

You can read other reports about the verdict here.