All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
-Article 13(1), The Constitution of India
The word untouchable is an epitome of their ills and sufferings. Not only has untouchability arrested the growth of their personality but also it comes in the way of their material well-being. It has also deprived them of certain civil rights….The untouchable is not even a citizen.
-Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, “Evidence Before the Southborough Committee”, in Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 256
Caste System is not merely division of labour. It is also a division of labourers. Civilized society undoubtedly needs division of labour. But in no civilized society is division of labour accompanied by this unnatural division of labourers into water-tight compartments. Caste System is not merely a division of labourers which is quite different from division of labour—it is an hierarchy in which the divisions of labourers are graded one above the other.
-“Annihilation of Caste” in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 47
Ahead of the upcoming hearing of the Supreme Court on November 3, 2026, on September 23, 2026, the Bihar Cabinet approved amendments to Rule 743 of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012, in compliance with the Supreme Court''s orders of July 30 and September 10, 2026, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).-10/2024, Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons In India.
The Supreme Court's 6-page long order dated September 10, 2026 reads: "3. We give one last opportunity to place on record a comprehensive report explaining in what manner our order dated 30.07.2026 has been complied with. We make it clear that by the next date of hearing, we want a report indicating that all the States/Union Territories district-wise have constituted the Board of Visitors headed by the Principal District Judge."
In compliance with a Supreme Court's order regarding the appointment of official and non-official visitors for all prisons, the State Government has amended the rules of the Bihar Prison Manual. The term "District Magistrate," which previously appeared in the regulations concerning the prison system and visitor arrangements, has been replaced with "District and Sessions Judge." A Board of Visitors will now be constituted, and under the new rules, it will be headed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge.
The unamended Rule 743 of Bihar Prison Manual reads: "Rule 743 Board of visitors.—The official and non-official visitors to all the prisons in the district shall constitute a Board of Visitors, of which the District Magistrate shall be the ex-officio chairperson. Official and non-official visitors shall jointly visit the prisons in the district atleast once in each quarter."
The head of the Board of Visitors of jails will now be the Principal District Judge. A major change has been made in the administration of Bihar’s jails. The inspection by Board of Visitors’ team has been made mandatory to inspect the district jails at least once every three months. Now, it will be compulsory to visit and inspect the jails in the districts. During the inspection, the Board of Visitors of the jail will assess the arrangements on the jail campus, cleanliness, food, security, and the inmates. The command will not remain with the DM. The legal and basic facilities available to the inmates will be reviewed directly at the level of the judicial Principal District and Sessions Judge.
This is being done in compliance with Supreme Court's directions in para 225-227 of the judgement dated October 3, 204 in Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024) which reads:"225 Apart from this, a Board of Visitors is constituted, as per the Model Prison Manual 2016, at a district level. The Board comprises of: “29.03 The Board of Visitors shall comprise the following official members:
a) The District Judge at the District level, or the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate exercising Jurisdiction, at Sub-Division level
b) The District Magistrate, at the District level or Sub-Divisional officer at Sub- Divisional level
c) District Superintendent of Police
d) The Chief Medical Officer of the Health Department, at the District level or the Sub-Divisional Medical Officer at Sub-Division level
e) The Executive Engineer, PWD at the District level, or Assistant Engineer PWD at Sub-Divisional level
f) The District Education Officer dealing with literacy programmes.
g) District Social Welfare Officer
h) District Employment Officer
i) District Agricultural Officer
j) District Industrial Officer
The Board shall make at least one visit per quarter and for this purpose, presence of three members and the chairman shall constitute quorum.
29.04 The Board of Visitors shall also comprise the following Non-Official Members:-
a) Three Members of the Legislative Assembly of the state of which one should be a woman.
b) A nominee of the State Human Rights Commission
c) Two social workers of the District/Sub-Division; one of them shall be a woman having an interest in the administration of prisons and welfare of prisoners.
29.05 The District Judge shall be the Chairman of the Board of visitors at District level and the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate shall be the Chairman at Sub-Division level. The Non-official visitors after their appointment must be sensitised and trained about their duties, roles and responsibilities.”
226 The duties of the Board have been provided as follows:
“29.22 All Visitors, official and non-official, at every visit shall:
(a) examine the cooked food;
(b) inspect the barracks, wards, work-sheds and other buildings of the prison generally;
(c) ascertain whether considerations of health, cleanliness and security are attended to, whether proper management and discipline is maintained in every respect and whether any prisoner is illegally detained, or is detained for undue length of time while awaiting trial;
(d) examine prison registers and records, except secret records and records pertaining to accounts;
(e) hear and attend to all representation and petitions made by or on behalf of the prisoners;
(f) direct, if deemed advisable, that any such representation or petition be forwarded to the Government;
(g) suggest new avenues for improvement in correctional work.”
The comments of the Board of Visitors are recorded in the visitors’ book of the prison and are forwarded to the Inspector General (IG) of Prisons. Any action on the comments is at the discretion of the IG Prisons.
227 The Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023 also envisages inspection of prisons, including by a Board of Visitors headed by the district judge/additional district judge/sub-divisional judicial magistrate.311 It also includes the provision for “free legal aid to the prisoners in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987” and the relevant standard operating procedure."
In its order dated July 30, 2026, the Court had directed all the State Governments/Union Territories to ensure that Board of Visitors is constituted district – wise headed by the Principal District Judge of that particular District, within a period of four weeks from today. Board of Visitors shall be constituted accordingly without fail. Any laxity in this regard will be viewed strictly.
Supreme Court's 7-page long order dated July 30, 2026 reads: "1. Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learned Amicus has placed on record a detailed Status Report. 2. In the Status Report, the learned Amicus has provided the background of the entire litigation, more particularly the various directions issued by this Court in its decision titled “Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India and Others”, reported in (2024) 15 SCC 535. 3. The report talks about compliance of various directions issued by this Court in the Judgment, referred to above, including the clarificatory Order passed by this Court dated 7th November, 2024. 4. We have looked into the entire report. One copy of the Status Report has been provided to all other learned Counsel appearing in this litigation. 5. However, in the course of today's hearing, learned Amicus laid much stress on para 25 of his status report." Para 25 is titled 'Information Awaited Para 25 reads:The Amicus is awaiting further written responses from several States/UTs in respect of:-
"a. The method of collection and transmission of caste-data to NCRB;
b. Deletion of caste columns in all the registers and forms in prisons;
c. Outsourcing of cleaning work;
d. Status of compliance with the guidelines in the judgments in Arnesh Kumar and Amanatullah Khan;
e. Notifications constituting BoVs district wise;
f. Status of new Acts/Rules/Manuals that are proposed by several States/UTs;
g. Status of amendments to offending provisions in the Acts/Rules/Manuals.”
Dr. Muralidhar, the Amicus informed the Court that the State of Assam, the State of Madhya Pradesh, the State of Meghalaya, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh have evolved a methodology insofar as collection and transmission of caste data is concerned. According to him, the same methodology may be adopted by other States/UTs for the purpose of procuring the necessary information. According to him, as on date, none of the States/Union Territories have constituted Board of Visitors District-wise. According to him, it is very much important and necessary for each State/UT to constitute Board of Visitors in each of the Districts where are sub-jails. This has to be done under the Model Prison Manual, 2016, more particularly, Clause 29.01 read with 29.03 respectively including the State Prison Manual respectively.
The Court's order reads: "10. We direct all the State Governments/Union Territories to ensure that Board of Visitors is constituted district – wise headed by the Principal District Judge of that particular District, within a period of four weeks from today. Board of Visitors shall be constituted accordingly without fail. Any laxity in this regard will be viewed strictly....We also direct all the States/Union Territories to provide us the status of amendments to the offending provisions in the Acts/Rules/Manuals as pointed out by the learned Amicus in his Status Report within a period of four weeks from today. 13. Registry shall forward one copy each of this Order to the Principal Secretary (Home) of all the States/Lieutenant Governors of Union Territories. The necessary Report as regards the aforesaid shall be forwarded by the respective States/Union Territories by 3-9-2026. Once all the necessary information is received, the Registry shall provide one copy each to the learned Amicus at the earliest."
In Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024), the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a 148-page long judgement dated October 3, 2024, wherein, referring to the discriminatory provisions in the prison manuals in the States, it concluded:...the impugned provisions are declared unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 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; (ii) The Union government is directed to make necessary changes, as highlighted in this judgment, to address caste-based discrimination in the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 within a period of three months; (iii) 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. In case, there is no habitual offender legislation in the State, the Union and the State governments are directed to make necessary changes in the manuals/rules in line with this judgment, within a period of three months; (iv) The “caste” column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts’ prisoners’ registers inside the prisons shall be deleted; (v) The Police is directed to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi (2024) to ensure that members of Denotified Tribes are not subjected to arbitrary arrest;(vi) This Court takes suo motu cognizance of the discrimination inside prisons on any ground such as caste, gender, disability, and shall list the case from now onwards as In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India." The Court will hearing In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India case on November 3, 2026.
Also read: Supreme Court all set to end persisting caste based discrimination in the prisons
No comments:
Post a Comment