SUPREME COURT PLEA CHALLENGES MADHYA PRADESH PRISON LAW FOR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST DENOTIFIED TRIBES THROUGH VAGUE ‘HABITUAL OFFENDER’ DEFINITION:

The Supreme Court of India, on October 31, 2025, permitted an intervention application filed by the Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project (CPA Project) in the suo motu case titled In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India. The intervention alleged that the State of Madhya Pradesh, through the enactment of the Madhya Pradesh Sudharatmak Sevayen Evam Bandigrah Adhiniyam, 2024, had violated the principles and directions laid down by the Court in the Sukanya Shantha judgment of 2024. The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan allowed the intervention, which was mentioned by Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat on behalf of the CPA Project.

The intervenor contended that the 2024 legislation enacted by Madhya Pradesh contains provisions that directly discriminate against denotified tribes, in violation of the Supreme Court’s earlier pronouncement. In the Sukanya Shantha case, the Court had unequivocally declared that any form of discrimination within prisons—on grounds such as caste, gender, or disability—was unconstitutional. It had further observed that discrimination against denotified tribes falls under the ambit of caste-based discrimination prohibited by Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Sukanya Shantha judgment also initiated ongoing suo motu proceedings to monitor compliance with its directions across the country.

The CPA Project submitted that the Madhya Pradesh Act defines “habitual offenders” as “prisoners who are sent to prison and correctional institutions repeatedly for their crimes.” The organization argued that this definition was unconstitutionally vague, manifestly arbitrary, and contrary to the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment. The earlier Sukanya Shantha ruling had explicitly held that the historical and contemporary treatment of denotified tribes in India was discriminatory and rooted in colonial stereotypes that labeled them as “habitual criminals.” The Court had directed that all references to “habitual offenders” in state prison manuals must strictly conform to the definitions provided under specific habitual offender legislations enacted by respective State legislatures. Any broader or alternative definitions were declared unconstitutional.

According to the CPA Project, Madhya Pradesh’s new law disregarded these constitutional safeguards. It pointed to Section 6(3) of the 2024 Act, which mandates separate wards for “high-risk prisoners, recidivists, and habitual offenders” in every prison. The intervenor argued that this provision collapses distinct categories of prisoners into one, thereby treating differently situated individuals as equals. Such classification, it contended, was unreasonable and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which permits only reasonable classifications based on intelligible differentia.

Further, Section 27(2) of the Act empowers a Classification and Security Assessment Committee to categorize prisoners as civil, criminal, or detenues, and further sub-classify them based on factors such as being a “habitual offender.” The intervenor maintained that this provision was arbitrary and had a disproportionate adverse effect on denotified tribes. Section 28 of the Act was also challenged for allowing prison authorities to take measures to “protect society from habitual offenders,” including their segregation and the denial of parole or furlough based on vague and excessively broad factors such as “available background records and history tickets.” The CPA Project argued that these measures effectively imposed harsher treatment on denotified tribes under the guise of preventing habitual crime, thereby perpetuating discriminatory practices struck down by the Supreme Court in 2024.

Additionally, Section 29, which authorizes surveillance of “high-risk prisoners” and “habitual offenders,” was also contested as being inconsistent with constitutional guarantees and the Supreme Court’s directions. The bench, after hearing the submissions, directed the intervenor to file a substantive application seeking specific directions concerning the Madhya Pradesh 2024 Act, thereby keeping the issue under judicial scrutiny in the ongoing suo motu proceedings on prison discrimination.