Supreme Court Scrutinizes MP Prison Law for Bias Against Denotified Tribes

NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court of India is set to conduct a rigorous constitutional examination of the Madhya Pradesh Sudharatmak Sevayen Evam Bandigrah Adhiniyam, 2024, following an intervention that alleges the new prison law disproportionately targets and discriminates against Denotified Tribes (DNTs). On October 31, 2025, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Viswanathan allowed an intervention application filed by the Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project (CPAProject), bringing the controversial law under judicial scrutiny within the ongoing suo motu proceedings, In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India .

The intervention, argued by Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, contends that the Madhya Pradesh legislation directly contravenes the principles established in the Supreme Court's landmark 2024 ruling in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India . The core of the challenge lies in the Act's "void for vagueness" definition of a “habitual offender,” which critics argue serves as a modern proxy for colonial-era prejudices that historically criminalized entire communities.

The case stands at the intersection of prison reform, fundamental rights, and the urgent need to dismantle systemic discrimination, raising a critical constitutional question: Can a state enact laws with vague, expansive definitions that perpetuate historical injustices against marginalized groups under the guise of crime prevention?

The Shadow of the Sukanya Shantha Judgment

To understand the gravity of the challenge, one must revisit the Supreme Court's seminal judgment in Sukanya Shantha (2024) . In that case, the Court acknowledged the grim reality that Indian prisons are not neutral spaces but are rife with discrimination based on caste, community, gender, and socio-economic status. A significant portion of the judgment was dedicated to the historical plight of Denotified Tribes, who were once branded as "criminal tribes" under the draconian British-era Criminal Tribes Act.

The Sukanya Shantha ruling explicitly recognized that even after the repeal of the Act, the stigma persisted through terminology like “habitual offenders” in state prison manuals and preventive laws. The Court held that such classifications, if based on vague stereotypes rather than strict statutory safeguards, would be unconstitutional under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15(1) (Prohibition of Discrimination). It directed states to define "habitual offender" strictly in accordance with specific legislation, cautioning against arbitrary definitions that could be weaponized against vulnerable communities.

The intervenor argues that the new Madhya Pradesh Act does precisely what the Supreme Court warned against.

Deconstructing the "Habitual Offender" Clause

At the heart of the legal challenge is the MP Act's definition of a habitual offender as: “prisoners who are sent to prison and correctional institutions repeatedly for their crimes.”

Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, representing CPAProject, argued that this definition is constitutionally untenable for several reasons:

• Void for Vagueness: The term "repeatedly" is not defined, leaving it to the absolute discretion of prison authorities. Does it mean twice? Three times? Over what period? This ambiguity allows for arbitrary application, particularly against DNTs who are historically over-policed and often arrested on suspicion rather than conviction.
• Manifest Arbitrariness: The definition fails to distinguish between the nature or gravity of offenses. A person repeatedly imprisoned for minor offenses could be branded a "habitual offender" alongside someone convicted of heinous crimes, violating the principle of reasonable classification under Article 14.
• Perpetuation of Stereotypes: For communities like DNTs, who face generational bias from law enforcement, this vague definition creates a high risk of being labeled "habitual offenders," leading to harsher treatment, denial of rights, and a cycle of incarceration. As the applicant submitted, "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."

Challenged Provisions: A System of Layered Discrimination

The intervention meticulously challenges specific sections of the MP Prison Act, arguing that they create a framework of systemic discrimination.

• Section 6(3): Unreasonable Segregation This section mandates separate wards for "high-risk prisoners," "recidivists," and "habitual offenders." The intervenor contends that this collapses distinct categories of prisoners into one, treating differently situated individuals as a monolith. This lack of intelligent differentia, it is argued, is a direct violation of the equality code enshrined in Article 14.

• Section 27(2): Flawed Classification This provision empowers a committee to classify prisoners, using "habitual offender" status as a key factor for sub-classification. Since the primary definition is itself flawed and arbitrary, its application in the classification process only intensifies the risk of discriminatory labeling and treatment.

• Section 28: Denial of Parole, Furlough, and Liberty Perhaps the most draconian provision challenged is Section 28. It authorizes special "preventive measures" for habitual offenders, permits segregation based on vague "background records," and, most critically, denies them parole and furlough.

  This is a direct assault on Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that parole and furlough are not mere privileges but are substantive rights aimed at reformation and maintaining social ties. By disproportionately branding DNTs as habitual offenders, the law effectively creates a separate, harsher carceral regime for them, curtailing their personal liberty. The intervenor powerfully argued, "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."

• Section 29: The Specter of Colonial Surveillance This section authorizes the surveillance of high-risk and habitual offenders even after their release. This includes tracking their movements, monitoring their associations, and interfering with their rehabilitation. The intervenor argues that this practice is a chilling echo of the colonial "criminal tracking" regime, which stigmatized DNTs for generations. Such post-release surveillance severely hampers an individual's ability to reintegrate into society, find employment, and live a life of dignity, thus violating the essence of Article 21.

Broader Implications for Constitutional Law and Prison Reform

The Supreme Court's decision to entertain this intervention signals its commitment to enforcing the Sukanya Shantha guidelines and addressing deep-rooted institutional biases. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications:

• Setting a National Precedent: A ruling striking down these provisions could set a binding precedent for all states, forcing a re-evaluation of their prison manuals and habitual offender laws.
• Strengthening the Vagueness Doctrine: The case offers the Court an opportunity to reinforce the doctrine that laws restricting liberty must be narrowly tailored and precisely defined.
• Protecting Marginalized Communities: It is a crucial test of the judiciary's role in protecting historically oppressed communities from facially neutral laws that have a discriminatory impact.

The bench has asked the intervenor to file a substantial directions application, indicating that it is prepared to delve deep into the Act's constitutional validity and issue corrective measures. This case is no longer just about a single state's law; it is about the soul of India's criminal justice system and its promise of equality, dignity, and liberty for all its citizens.