The Supreme Court, on October 31, allowed an intervention application filed by the Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project (CPA Project) in the ongoing suo motu proceedings concerning discrimination inside Indian prisons. The intervenor argued that the Madhya Pradesh Sudharatmak Sevayen Evam Bandigrah Adhiniyam, 2024 violates the principles laid down in the 2024 Sukanya Shantha judgment, by perpetuating bias against denotified tribes through its vague and arbitrary provisions on “habitual offenders.”

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan permitted the intervention, moved by Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, noting that the issue raised concerns compliance with the Court’s previous directions.

The intervenor submitted that the 2024 Madhya Pradesh Act defines a habitual offender as “prisoners who are sent to prison and correctional institutions repeatedly for their crimes.” Such a definition, it argued, is void for vagueness, manifestly arbitrary, and contrary to the Sukanya Shantha ruling, which held that laws employing ambiguous language around “habitual offenders” enable arbitrary state action and violate fundamental rights.

In the Sukanya Shantha judgment, the Supreme Court had condemned the discriminatory treatment of denotified tribes—historically labeled as “habitual criminals”—and ruled that all references to “habitual offenders” in prison manuals must conform strictly to the statutory definitions under state laws, subject to constitutional scrutiny. Any broader or vague definitions were declared unconstitutional.

The intervenor pointed out several problematic provisions in the 2024 Act:

• Section 6(3) mandates separate wards for high-risk prisoners, recidivists, and habitual offenders, effectively merging distinct categories of prisoners and violating the equality principle under Article 14, as only similarly situated individuals can be treated alike.

• Section 27(2) empowers prison authorities to classify prisoners into various categories, including “habitual offenders,” a classification the intervenor termed “manifestly arbitrary” for disproportionately affecting denotified tribes.

• Section 28 authorises segregation and denial of parole or furlough to habitual offenders based on vague factors like “background records” and “history tickets.” The intervenor argued that this provision allows discrimination through indirect means, making it unconstitutional.

• Section 29, which permits surveillance of habitual offenders and high-risk prisoners, was also challenged for violating privacy and equality rights, contrary to the Sukanya Shantha principles.

The Supreme Court has directed the intervenor to file a substantial directions application specifically addressing the constitutionality of the Madhya Pradesh Act in light of the 2024 ruling.

Case Title: In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India | Suo Motu No. 10/2024