Font size:
Print
Supreme Court Questions ‘Habitual Offender’ Laws
Context:
Months after the Supreme Court of India raised concerns over decade-old laws classifying certain individuals as “habitual offenders,” the Government of India has disclosed in Parliament that such laws remain in force in 14 States and Union Territories.
Supreme Court’s Observations
- SC’s Concerns: In October 2024, while ruling on a case regarding caste discrimination in Indian prisons, the Supreme Court questioned the constitutional validity of the “habitual offender” classification.
- The court noted that the classification was “constitutionally suspect” and had been used to “target members of denotified tribes.”
- MoSJ Reply: The recent information, presented in the Lok Sabha on March 11 by the Union Social Justice Ministry, revealed differing stances among States.
- Gujarat, for instance, defended the continuation of the law, citing its intended purpose, while Punjab is in the process of discontinuing its application.
- Haryana has already repealed the legislation.
- The Union Ministry of Home Affairs regularly communicates with States regarding the status of these laws and their potential repeal.
Origin of the ‘Habitual Offender’ Classification
- Regulation XXII of 1793: According to the National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (DNT, NT, SNT), led by Bhiku Ramji Idate, the criminalisation of communities began with Regulation XXII of 1793.
- CTA of 1871: Subsequent laws, such as the Indian Penal Code (1860) and the Criminal Procedure Code (1861), established a system for maintaining a register of “dacoits and thugs,” culminating in the Criminal Tribes Act (CTA) of 1871.
- This law formally labelled certain tribes as “criminal” and mandated their registration.
- The CTA was repealed in 1952 following the recommendations of the Criminal Tribes Act Enquiry Committee (1949-50).
- States’ Laws: However, many States subsequently introduced their own “habitual offender” laws, shifting the focus from communities to individuals based on their past convictions.
- States such as Rajasthan (1953), Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Karnataka, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh enacted similar legislation over the following decades.
- Lokur Committee: Despite this shift, the Lokur Committee in 1965 continued to view denotified tribes as having an “anti-social heritage,” reinforcing negative stereotypes.
Crimes Under ‘Habitual Offender’ Laws
- Classification: The classification of “habitual offenders” included crimes such as “being a thug,” “belonging to a gang of dacoits,” “living on the earnings of prostitution,” and various offences related to “lurking.”
- States maintained registers of habitual offenders, and prison regulations often reflected this classification, sometimes explicitly targeting former members of “criminal tribes.”
- Budhab Sabar: The 1998 custodial death of Budhan Sabar, a member of a denotified community in West Bengal, sparked national outrage and renewed scrutiny of these laws.
- This led to the formation of the Denotified and Nomadic Tribes Rights Action Group (DNT-RAG) by writers Mahasweta Devi and G.N. Devy.
- The group highlighted ongoing discrimination and petitioned the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the United Nations, calling for the repeal of such laws.
Calls for Repeal and Global Scrutiny
- Advocacy Group: Following advocacy efforts, the NHRC established an Advisory Group in 2000, which recommended the repeal of habitual offender laws.
- Subsequent Reports: Subsequent reports by national commissions, including those led by B.S. Renke (2008) and Professor Virginius Xaxa (2014), reiterated the negative impact of these laws on denotified and nomadic tribes.
- UN Committee: In 2007, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination also called for their repeal.
State Responses and Ongoing Debate
- When the Supreme Court revisited the issue in October 2024, it acknowledged that habitual offender laws were not the primary subject of the case but nonetheless felt compelled to comment.
- The Court observed that these laws, though intended to replace the CTA, continued to be used to target denotified tribes. It urged State governments to review the necessity of these laws.
- According to the latest reports from States and Union Territories to the Ministry of Home Affairs:
- Punjab has not implemented the law for over five years and has not maintained any registers.
- Odisha has reported no cases registered under the law in the past five years.
- Andhra Pradesh has stated that no prisoners currently fall under this classification.
- Goa has argued that, since it has no denotified tribes, there is no risk of misuse and has suggested retaining the law.
- Gujarat has opposed repealing the law, asserting that it is not intended for harassment.
- Telangana has described the law as preventative.
- Uttar Pradesh has indicated that all habitual offender provisions are covered under its Goondas Act, rendering the law redundant.
Current Status and the Way Forward
- As per the National Crime Records Bureau’s 2022 data, 1.9% of India’s 1.29 lakh convict population is classified as “habitual offenders,” with the highest percentage in Delhi, where 21.5% of convicts fall under this category.
- With the Supreme Court questioning the relevance of these laws and multiple national and international bodies advocating for their repeal, the debate over the habitual offender classification continues.
While some States have moved towards discontinuation, others defend the law’s necessity. The coming years may determine whether these laws persist or are phased out in favor of more progressive legal frameworks.
