This mandate follows the Court's October 3, 2024, judgment, which identified and condemned provisions in various state prison manuals that perpetuated caste-based discrimination. The Court had previously instructed both Union and state governments to amend their prison manuals to eradicate any discriminatory practices. Despite these clear directives, several states have yet to comply, prompting the Court to set a firm deadline.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar, serving as amicus curiae, highlighted that while many states have submitted compliance reports, responses from Telangana, Haryana, Punjab, Manipur, Assam, Chhattisgarh, and the National Capital Territory of Delhi remain outstanding. Representatives for these states, excluding Chhattisgarh and Delhi, claimed that their reports had been filed but were not reflected in the Court's records.
Justice Pardiwala, emphasizing the urgency of the matter, stated, "Most states have filed compliance reports. If any state or Union Territory is yet to file a response, we grant a final opportunity." The bench, which also includes Justice R. Mahadevan, has scheduled the next hearing for March 4, 2025, marking this as the final chance for pending submissions.
The October 2024 judgment was a response to a petition by journalist Sukanya Shantha, who exposed instances of caste discrimination embedded within several state prison manuals. The Court declared such provisions unconstitutional, asserting that they violate the fundamental rights of prisoners. Consequently, the Union government was directed to amend the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prison Consolidation of Services Act, 2013, within a three-month timeframe.
In addition to mandating revisions to prison manuals, the Court initiated suo motu proceedings to monitor the implementation of these reforms. States were instructed to identify and eliminate any discriminatory practices within their prisons, particularly those classifying prisoners based on caste, disability, or gender.
On November 7, 2024, Dr. Muralidhar raised concerns that the judgment might inadvertently hinder the National Crime Records Bureau from collecting comprehensive data on prisoners. The NCRB, operating under the Ministry of Home Affairs, compiles detailed profiles of inmates, including aspects related to caste. To address this concern, the Court clarified that its judgment should not impede the NCRB's data collection efforts.
In the latest session, the Court issued a notice to the NCRB, seeking confirmation on its adherence to the November 7 directive. Furthermore, states were directed to assist the NCRB in gathering accurate and comprehensive data.