Supreme Court Allows Intervention Challenging Madhya Pradesh Prison Law Over Discrimination Against Denotified Tribes

The Supreme Court of India today allowed an intervention filed by the Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project, which argued 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.

According to the intervenor, the 2024 Act contains various provisions that discriminate against denotified tribes. The Sukanya Shantha judgment had previously held that discrimination inside prisons based on caste, gender, and disability is illegal. In particular, the Court had observed that denotified tribes are protected under Article 15(1) of the Constitution against caste-based discrimination.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Viswanathan allowed the intervention application, which was mentioned by Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat. The intervenor submitted that Madhya Pradesh defines a habitual offender as “prisoners who are sent to prison and correctional institutions repeatedly for their crimes,” which they argued is vague, manifestly arbitrary, and violates the 2024 judgment.

The Sukanya Shantha judgment noted that denotified tribes have historically been treated as “habitual criminals” due to colonial and post-colonial stereotypes, which were often reinforced by State prison manuals. The Court had directed that references to habitual offenders in prison manuals must strictly follow the definitions provided in respective State legislation and declared all other definitions unconstitutional.

The applicant submitted that vague language in the law allows authorities to declare persons as habitual offenders merely on suspicion, which was constitutionally suspect in the Sukanya Shantha judgment.

Several provisions of the Madhya Pradesh law have been challenged:

• Section 6(3): Mandates separate wards for high-risk prisoners/recidivists/habitual offenders, collapsing differently situated prisoners into the same category, which violates Article 14.

• Section 27(2): Allows classification of prisoners into civil, criminal, and detenue categories, with sub-categories including habitual offenders, disproportionately affecting denotified tribes.

• Section 28: Empowers authorities to take measures to protect society from habitual offenders, including segregation and denial of parole/furlough, using vague factors such as “available background records and history tickets.” This provision has been challenged as unconstitutional for facilitating discriminatory treatment against denotified tribes.

• Section 29: Permits surveillance of high-risk prisoners and habitual offenders, also challenged for violating the 2024 judgment.

The bench has now directed 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