During a hearing on Thursday, the Supreme Court raised concerns about possible discriminatory implications of the Madhya Pradesh Sudharatmak Sevayen Evam Bandigrah Adhiniyam, 2024, particularly for denotified tribes. The matter came up in the ongoing suo motu proceedings titled In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India, which the Court has been monitoring since its landmark Sukanya Shantha judgment earlier this year.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Viswanathan allowed an intervention plea filed by the Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project (CPA Project), represented by Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat.
Background
The Sukanya Shantha judgment had brought national attention to discrimination inside prisons. The Court had specifically noted that prisoners from denotified tribes often face stigma because of historical labelling as “habitual criminals” - a colonial-era stereotype.
Read also:- Supreme Court Signals Fresh Look in 30-Year-Old Land Sale Dispute, Issues Status Quo and Considers
In that judgment, the Court declared that any reference to “habitual offenders” in prison laws must strictly follow a lawful definition and must not be used loosely in prison manuals or by authorities.
The intervenor argued that the 2024 Madhya Pradesh Act, despite being presented as a modern correctional reform law, reintroduces vague and overbroad powers that could allow authorities to again mark denotified tribes as habitual offenders with little basis.
Court’s Observations
Senior Advocate Bhat submitted that the Act defines a habitual offender as someone repeatedly sent to prison, without explaining what counts as “repeatedly” or ensuring procedural safeguards.
“The bench observed, ‘If terminology permits arbitrary discretion, it risks echoing discriminatory history. We must guard against such recurrence.’”
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Delayed and Incomplete Arbitral Award in Lancor Holdings–Menon Property
The Court was reminded that vague definitions in criminal law often give officials excessive room for subjective judgment - a situation the Sukanya Shantha ruling had warned about.
The intervenor highlighted specific provisions:
- Section 6(3): Requires separate wards for “high-risk prisoners/recidivists/habitual offenders,” grouping different categories together.
- Section 27(2): Allows classification committees to label certain prisoners as “habitual offenders,” impacting how they are housed and treated.
- Section 28: Permits additional restrictions, segregation, and even denial of parole and furlough based on past "records" rather than current conduct.
According to the CPA Project, these provisions “could disproportionately harm denotified tribes, given their historical criminal profiling.”
The bench seemed particularly attentive to the argument that such classification risks reviving colonial policing patterns, even though the Court has previously directed the removal of discriminatory labels.
Decision
After hearing the submissions, the bench allowed the intervention application and directed the intervenor to file a detailed application seeking substantial directions concerning the 2024 Act.
No final ruling was made on the Act itself. The matter will now proceed with further submissions and scrutiny by the Court.
In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India (Suo Motu) – Challenge to Madhya Pradesh Prison Reform Act, 2024
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala & Justice Viswanathan
Matter Type: Suo Motu Public Interest Case
Issue: Alleged discrimination against Denotified Tribes inside prisons.
New Law Under Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh Sudharatmak Sevayen Evam Bandigrah Adhiniyam, 2024
Connection to Previous Judgment: Violates directions issued in Sukanya Shantha (2024) judgment against stereotyping prisoners based on caste or community.
Intervenor: Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project (CPA Project)
Representation: Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat argued for the intervenor.
