Opinion: Supreme Court order to delete caste references in prison data will not end discrimination

On October 3, the Supreme Court declared that provisions in state prison rules that used caste as the basis to allocate work to inmates and segregate them were unconstitutional. In a landmark judgement, the court held that such practices violate the fundamental rights guaranteeing equality and life and those outlawing discrimination, untouchability and forced labour.

The court ordered that prison manuals be revised. It also told the District Legal Services Authority and the Board of Visitors to monitor prisons to ensure that caste-based practices do not continue.

In the same vein, the court directed that the “caste column” and any references to caste in prison records be deleted. However, this will erase from the criminal justice system caste demographics that have been a crucial tool for understanding and addressing disparities in prisons.

The court was ruling on a petition filed by journalist Sukanya Shantha, who had reported on caste-based segregation and work allocation in prisons. Her report showed how prison manuals assigned lower-caste prisoners the “impure” work of sweeping and cleaning sewers while upper-caste prisoners were given roles in kitchens, medical rooms and offices – work that is not considered “polluting” or “dirty”.

Caste, prisons and data

According to the report Prison Statistics of India 2022, published by the National Crime Records Bureau, members of the Scheduled Castes account for 22.4% of the prison population, though they form only 16.6% of the general population, according to the 2011 census.

Similarly, members of the Scheduled Tribes constitute 11% of those incarcerated, even though they represent just 8.6% of the general population.

Since 1995, the National Crime Records Bureau has reported annual prison statistics collected from the prison headquarters of all states and union territories. With the order to delete caste columns from prison registers, there will be no public record of the caste composition of India’s prisons.

Such information is not systematically collected during the stages of arrest, remand, prison admission, bail, conviction or acquittal.

Through the years, data on the caste of prisoners has consistently shown that marginalised communities are overrepresented, except in 2016 and 2017, when the National Crime Records Bureau did not report the caste and religion demography for reasons best known to it.

This is a stark reminder that the lowest groups in India’s social hierarchy are more likely to face criminal charges and imprisonment.

Hiding caste in Indian prisons

The directive to erase caste references in prison records will make caste invisible to policymakers and risks obscuring the systemic inequalities in the justice system, perpetuating the very caste-based injustices that the judgement seeks to rectify.

The 148-page judgement fails to explain how deleting such records will help dismantle caste-based practices within the prison system. By suggesting that caste be removed from records, the judgement oversimplifies the issue, implying that this aspect of identity can be detached from an individual’s social reality.

It neglects the reality that caste is an ascriptive social identity deeply embedded in daily life, regardless of official documentation.

Maja Daruwala, chief editor of the India Justice Report, notes that though the court aims to eliminate caste-based identification to prevent discrimination, “ignoring caste as a lived reality means we lose crucial data”.

“Without this information, we can’t track overrepresentation or show patterns of ongoing discrimination, which persist even when caste isn’t officially recorded but can still be inferred from names,” said Daruwala. “Access to such data is essential to reveal systemic biases in arrests and incarceration.”

Caste data is not merely an administrative detail. It is a crucial first step toward effective policy-making. Such statistics are vital for grasping the extent of caste-based criminalisation and the disproportionate impact of incarceration on marginalised communities. Without a clear picture of the problem, any attempts to promote equity and justice for marginalised groups will remain devoid of informed action.

At the same time, deleting caste from data records has a deep historical context embedded with the political agenda of privileged castes. In an essay in From Millions to Fractions, architect of the Indian Constitution BR Ambedkar records this old struggle for the caste enumeration of the “untouchables”. His essay references the origin of the “high-caste Hindu” argument that listing of “untouchables” by the government will perpetuate untouchability.

Making a case for accurate enumeration, Ambedkar writes, “If the Untouchables make no noise, the Hindu feels no shame for their condition and is quite indifferent as to their numbers. Whether they are thousands or millions of them, he does not care to bother.”

After almost a century-long struggle for social justice, the ruling party continues to propagate the same rhetoric that such enumeration will lead to social division and entrench hierarchies.

The Supreme Court direction to delete caste columns in prison data fares no better. The Chief Justice of India mentions “Ambedkar” 42 times in the judgement to set the context of caste discrimination. However, the ruling still, intentionally or not, slips in the political rhetoric that erasing records equals erasing casteism.

It overlooks the true goal of social justice, which is to guarantee equal status to all communities without requiring them to hide their caste identities.

Shrutika Pandey is a lawyer and researcher working to provide legal support to prisoners through pro bono programmes. Siddharth Lamba is a lawyer and researcher who works on criminal justice issues.