The Supreme Court on December 15 took up an interlocutory application seeking to invalidate allegedly discriminatory provisions contained in the Madhya Pradesh prison statute and police regulations, in a pending suo motu case examining discrimination within prisons across the country.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was hearing an Interlocutory Application filed by the Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project (CPA Project) in the suo motu writ petition titled In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons In India.

Through the application, the CPA Project has assailed multiple provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Sudharatmak Sevayen Evam Bandigrah Adhiniyam, 2024, along with the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, 1937, arguing that they are unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India. The applicants have also sought directions requiring all States to disclose similar provisions in their police regulations, standing orders, rules, or subordinate legislation.

At the hearing, Senior Advocate C.U. Singh submitted that the IA was now pressed for directions. While the principal reliefs concern Madhya Pradesh, he pointed out that States such as Punjab and Uttar Pradesh also have comparable discriminatory provisions governing prisoners. He further referred to an earlier affidavit filed by the CPA Project highlighting discriminatory provisions in the MP Prison Rules against denotified tribes.

After considering the submissions, the Court directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to file its counter affidavit expeditiously in response to the challenge to the prison law and police regulations. On the request seeking information from all States and Union Territories, the Bench noted that hearing each State separately would be time-consuming and accordingly directed the Union of India to examine the issue and place its response on record.

Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar, appearing as Amicus Curiae, informed the Court that he would hold detailed consultations with States and Union Territories and submit a comprehensive report. He also stated that assistance would be sought from institutions such as the National Legal Services Authority in preparing the report.

Accepting the submission, the Bench directed that the exercise be completed at the earliest and ordered that the matter be listed after six months.

The suo motu proceedings were initiated to address systemic discrimination in prisons and custodial institutions, including caste-based and other forms of exclusion. The present application widens the scope of scrutiny to State prison laws and police regulations in light of the Court’s recent jurisprudence on equality and prison reforms.

While the compliance issue will be heard after six months, the Bench listed the Madhya Pradesh interlocutory application for February at the request of Senior Advocate Singh.

Provisions Under Challenge:

In Sukanya Shantha, the Supreme Court had held that the treatment of denotified tribes in colonial and post-colonial India was rooted in stereotypes and discriminatory practices. The Court specifically criticised prison manuals for equating denotified tribes with “habitual criminals”.

It directed that references to “habitual offenders” must strictly conform to definitions contained in State habitual offender legislations, declaring all other vague or extra-statutory references unconstitutional. Where no such legislation exists, States and the Union were directed to enact necessary laws.

Relying on the judgment, the applicant contends that vague terminology concerning habitual offenders enables arbitrary exercise of power and permits authorities to label individuals as habitual offenders based merely on suspicion.

Section 6(3) of the MP Act mandates separate wards for high-risk prisoners, recidivists, and habitual offenders. The applicant argues that this merges distinct categories of prisoners, violating Article 14 by treating unequals alike.

Section 27(2), which authorises classification of prisoners into civil, criminal and detenues with further sub-classifications including habitual offenders, has also been challenged as manifestly arbitrary and disproportionately impacting denotified tribes.

Section 28 empowers authorities to take measures to protect society from habitual offenders, including segregation based on vague criteria such as background records and history tickets, and denial of parole and furlough. The applicant submits that this provision facilitates discriminatory and rights-restrictive treatment of denotified tribes through the proxy of habitual offender classification.

Additional provisions, including Section 29 permitting surveillance of high-risk prisoners and habitual offenders, have also been questioned for being contrary to the 2024 judgment.

Case Details:
IN RE: Discrimination Inside Prisons In India | Suo Motu No. 10/2024