EARLIER THIS MONTH, Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project (‘CPA Project’), a litigation, research and advocacy based organisation, moved an Interlocutory Application before the Supreme Court in the ongoing suo motu proceedings In Re: Discrimination inside Prisons in India. The proceedings, which operate as a continuing mandamus, stem from the Supreme Court’s decision in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024), prompted by a 2020 investigation exposing caste-based discrimination in prison manuals. There, the Court had held that caste-based discrimination inside prisons is unconstitutional, recognising that “habitual offender” classifications have historically operated as proxies for caste policing.
The application calls for striking down several provisions of the newly enacted Madhya Pradesh Sudharatmak Sevayen Evam Bandigrah Adhiniyam, 2024, and related police regulations, arguing that they disproportionately criminalise members of Denotified Tribes (‘DNTs’). The Act, which came into force on January 1, 2025, is alleged to re-inscribe caste stigma through intensified surveillance based on a vague definition of “habitual offender”.
The proceedings operate as a continuing mandamus and arose from the Supreme Court’s decision in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024).
Research shows disproportionate impact on DNT communities
Over the years, research conducted by CPA Project has documented systemic over-policing of DNT communities in Madhya Pradesh. One report titled “Drunk on Power: A Study of Excise Policing in Madhya Pradesh” (2021) examined arrest records across twenty districts between 2018 and 2020. It found that 56.35 percent of arrests under excise offences were of persons from marginalised castes, including 11 percent identified as belonging to DNT communities. At Jabalpur’s Ghamapur Police Station, 441 of 509 women arrested under excise offences belonged to the Kuchbandhiya DNT community, with some arrested between 23 and 28 times.
Similarly, another report, “Everyday Policing in Guna, Madhya Pradesh” (2024) analysed 20,705 arrests, 71.7 percent of which involved persons belonging to marginalised communities, while DNTs constituted 15.09 percent (3,126 arrests), far exceeding their share of the population. Most arrests were for petty offences despite the Supreme Court’s direction in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) to avoid unnecessary arrests in offences punishable up to seven years.
Such disproportionate outcomes, the application submits, demonstrate how “habitual offender” frameworks reproduce caste criminalisation at scale.
“The Madhya Pradesh law encodes ‘hereditary criminality’, is unconstitutional”: The application argues
The application links the MP Prison Act to the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, 1937, which continue to empower police to surveil, document and track communities branded historically as “wandering tribes” or “criminal tribes”. It highlights specific regulations that require the maintenance of registers of criminal tribes, routine monitoring of the movement of wandering gangs, detailed documentation of their habits and appearance, opening of history sheets without conviction, indefinite retention of fingerprints, and continuous surveillance of individuals associated with these communities.
The application challenges Sections 2(15), 2(19), 6(3), 27(3), 28 and 29(7) of the Act. It argues that the Act’s legal architecture contravenes Article 14, 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution. Notably, the definition of “habitual offender” in Section 2(15), it contends, permits arbitrary classification without statutory standards. When read with Section 27(3), which empowers authorities to sub-classify prisoners, the provision enables segregation based on status rather than individualised assessment.
Section 6(3), which mandates that habitual offenders be housed in segregated wards alongside “high-risk” prisoners, is said to collapse distinct categories of inmates, legitimising separation based on inherited stigma rather than risk. Section 28 enables denial of parole and furlough solely on the “habitual offender” status, while Section 29(7) authorises access to police “criminal history” records without procedural safeguards.
The application argues that these practices normalize hereditary criminality rather than evidence-based policing and therefore violate constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, freedom of movement, presumption of innocence and the right to a fair investigation.
The intervenor, in its prayer, has urged the Court to declare the impugned provisions of the MP Prison Act and the 1937 Regulations unconstitutional which, in its view, perpetuate caste-based criminalisation contrary to the Sukanya Shantha ruling.
On the broader prayer seeking disclosure of similar provisions by other States, the Court directed the Union of India to examine the issue and file a response.
Notice issued to Madhya Pradesh government
On December 15, 2025, a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan issued notice to the State of Madhya Pradesh, directing it to file a counter affidavit to the challenge against the 2024 Act and the 1937 Regulations.
Going beyond the state-specific challenge, the intervenor has also sought directions requiring all States and Union Territories to place on record any prison rules, manuals or standing orders that permit similar habitual-offender classifications or caste-proxy surveillance. According to the intervenor, a systemic, cross-jurisdictional review is necessary to dismantle such frameworks within prisons and policing.
On this broader prayer, the Court directed the Union of India to examine the issue and file a response. The Court also recorded submissions by Amicus Curiae Dr. S. Muralidhar noting that he would undertake consultations with States and Union Territories, with assistance from bodies such as National Legal Services Authority, and place an exhaustive report before the Court. The matter has been directed to be listed after six months.