Plea In Supreme Court Questions MP Prison Law As Discriminatory Against Denotified Tribes Due To Vague Definition Of Habitual Offenders
The Supreme Court today(October 31) allowed an intervention filed by the Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project, arguing that the State of Madhya Pradesh has violated the 2024 Sukanya Shantha judgment through its Madhya Pradesh Sudharatmak Sevayen Evam Bandigrah Adhiniyam, 2024, in the suo moto matter concerning discrimination inside prisons in India. As per the intervenor, the 2024 Act contains various provisions that discriminate against denotified tribes.
In Sukanya Shantha judgment, the Supreme Court observed that discrimination inside prisons based on grounds of caste, gender, and disability is illegal and initiated a suo motu proceedings titled In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India, which it continues to monitor for compliance with the directions passed. For the denotified tribes, it was observed that discrimination against them is prohibited under the ground of "caste" in Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Viswanathan allowed the intervention application, which was mentioned by Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat. The intervenor has submitted that Madhya Pradesh defines a habitual offender as "prisoners who are sent to prison and correctional institutions repeatedly for their crimes," which is void for vagueness, manifestly arbitrary and violates the 2024 judgment.
In the Sukanya Shantha judgment, the Supreme Court had observed that the treatment of denotified tribes in colonial and post-colonial India was discriminatory against them as they were based on stereotypes. It took particular note of how State prison manuals reinforced stereotypes against the denotified tribes by conflating them with "habitual criminals".
It directed that all references to the term habitual offender shall strictly be in accordance with law: "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."
The applicant has now stated :
"In the Sukanya Shantha's judgment, the Court had held that vague language employed in laws concerning habitual offenders was constitutionally suspect because it leads to authorites being able to exercise discretion in an unjust manner, and declare persons as habitual offenders merely on the basis of suspicion."
Section 6(3) stipulates that each central prison and correctional institution/district prison should have a separate ward for high-risk prisoners/recidivists/habitual offenders in order to protect other inmates from mingling with them.
"This has the effect of collapsing differently situated categories of prisoners into the same category. It is a settled principle of law that only those similarly situated may be treated equally, and thus the said classification of prisoners is not a reasonable classification and is violative of the principles of Article 14."
Further, it is stated that Section 27(2) empowers the classification and security assessment committee to classify the prisoners into three categories- civil, criminal and detenues. There is further sub-classification, and one of the categories for it is that the person is a habitual offender. It is argued that it is manifestly arbitrary because of its disproportionate impact on denotified tribes.
Lastly, it is stated that Section 28 empowers the authorities to take all appropriate measures for protecting society from habitual offenders. It also permits their segregation based on vague and excessively broad factors such as "available background records and history tickets". It also denies parole and furlough to habitual offenders.
"Section 28 is therefore unconstitutional for stipulating differential, rights restricting measures against denotified tribes through the proxy of 'habitual offenders' and for sanctioning discriminatory treatment against them."
Other provisions, such as Section 29 allowing surveillance of high-risk prisoners and habitual offenders, have also been challenged for violating the 2024 judgment.
The bench has now asked the intervenor to file a substantial directions application regarding the 2024 Act.
Case Details: IN RE: DISCRIMINATION INSIDE PRISONS IN INDIA| SUO MOTO No. 10/2024
Appearances: Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat appeared for the intervenor, assisted by Dr. Malavika Prasad, Adv, Nikita Sonawane, Adv and Yash S Vijay AOR.