Supreme Court Seeks Response Of MP, Union On Alleged Discriminatory Prison & Police Provisions
Gursimran Kaur Bakshi
17 Dec 2025 10:40 AM IST
The Supreme Court on December 15 considered an interlocutory application seeking to strike down allegedly discriminatory provisions in the Madhya Pradesh prison law and police regulations, in an ongoing suo motu case concerning discrimination inside prisons across India.
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was hearing Interlocutory Application filed by the Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project (CPA Project) in the suo motu writ petition In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons In India.
The application has challenged several provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Sudharatmak Sevayen Evam Bandigrah Adhiniyam, 2024, and the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, 1937, contending that they are unconstitutional and contrary to the Supreme Court's 2024 judgment in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India. The applicants have also sought directions to all other States to place on record similar provisions in their police regulations, standing orders, rules, or subordinate legislation.
When the matter was taken up, Senior Advocate CU Singh submitted that the IA has now been filed for directions. He also submitted that while most prayers are limited to the State of Madhya Pradesh, there are also States like Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, which have similar discriminatory provisions for prisoners. The CPA Project had earlier filed an affidavit highlighting that provisions of the MP Prison Rules were discriminatory against denotified tribes.
After hearing the parties, the Court directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to file its counter affidavit at the earliest in response to the challenge to the State law and police regulations. With respect to the prayer seeking information from all States and Union Territories, the Bench observed that hearing each State individually could take considerable time. In that context, it asked the Union of India to examine the issue and file its response.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar, appearing as Amicus Curiae, informed the Court that he would undertake extensive deliberations with the States and Union Territories and place an exhaustive report before the Court. He also submitted that he would seek the assistance of bodies such as the National Legal Services Authority for preparing the report.
Accepting the submission, the Bench directed that the exercise be undertaken at the earliest. The matter has been directed to be listed after six months.
The suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Supreme Court to address structural discrimination within prisons and custodial institutions, including caste based and other forms of exclusion, and the present application expands the scope of scrutiny to State prison laws and police regulations in the light of the Court's recent jurisprudence on prison reforms and equality.
While the Court will hear the compliance matter after six months, it has listed the Madhya Pradesh's IA in February at Singh's request.
What are the provisions challenged?
In the Sukanya Shantha judgment, the Supreme Court had observed that the treatment of denotified tribes in colonial and post-colonial India was discriminatory against them as they were based on stereotypes. It took particular note of how State prison manuals reinforced stereotypes against the denotified tribes by conflating them with "habitual criminals".
It directed that all references to the term habitual offender shall strictly be in accordance with law: "References to “habitual offenders” in the prison manuals/Model Prison Manual shall be in accordance with the definition provided in the habitual offender legislation enacted by the respective State legislatures, subject to any constitutional challenge against such legislation in the future. All other references or definitions of “habitual offenders” in the impugned prison manuals/rules are declared unconstitutional. In case, there is no habitual offender legislation in the State, the Union and the State governments are directed to make necessary."
The applicant states :
"In the Sukanya Shantha's judgment, the Court had held that 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, and declare persons as habitual offenders merely on the basis of suspicion."
Section 6(3) stipulates that each central prison and correctional institution/district prison should have a separate ward for high-risk prisoners/recidivists/habitual offenders in order to protect other inmates from mingling with them.
"This has the effect of collapsing differently situated categories of prisoners into the same category. It is a settled principle of law that only those similarly situated may be treated equally, and thus the said classification of prisoners is not a reasonable classification and is violative of the principles of Article 14."
Further, it is stated that Section 27(2) empowers the classification and security assessment committee to classify the prisoners into three categories- civil, criminal and detenues. There is further sub-classification, and one of the categories for it is that the person is a habitual offender. It is argued that it is manifestly arbitrary because of its disproportionate impact on denotified tribes.
Lastly, it is stated that Section 28 empowers the authorities to take all appropriate measures for protecting society from habitual offenders. It also permits their segregation based on vague and excessively broad factors such as "available background records and history tickets". It also denies parole and furlough to habitual offenders.
"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."
Other provisions, such as Section 29 allowing surveillance of high-risk prisoners and habitual offenders, have also been challenged for violating the 2024 judgment.
Case Details: IN RE: DISCRIMINATION INSIDE PRISONS IN INDIA| SUO MOTO No. 10/2024