What's New

How do habitual offender laws discriminate?

Syllabus:

GS 2: Government Intervention

Why in the News?

Recently, the Government of India informed Parliament that habitual offender laws still exist in 14 states and UTs, despite the Supreme Court questioning their constitutionality and impact on de-notified tribes.

Debate Over Habitual Offender Laws in India

• India’s “habitual offender” laws have been under scrutiny, especially after the Supreme Court questioned their necessity.
• These laws, originally intended to curb repeat offenders, have been criticized for disproportionately targeting members of denotified tribes (DNTs).
• Despite calls for repeal, 14 States and Union Territories continue to implement them.

Supreme Court’s Stand on Habitual Offender Laws

• In October 2023, while addressing caste discrimination in prisons, the Supreme Court expressed concerns about the “habitual offender” classification.
• It termed the classification “constitutionally suspect,” stating that it unfairly targets members of DNTs.
• In March 2024, the Union Social Justice Ministry disclosed in Parliament that while some states like Punjab are discontinuing these laws, others, such as Gujarat, justify their continuation.
• Union Ministry of Home Affairs regularly interacts with states regarding their status.

Origins of the Habitual Offender Classification

• The criminalization of communities in India began in 1793 with Regulation XXII, granting magistrates authority to imprison or impose forced labour on specific tribes.
• The Indian Penal Code (1860) and Criminal Procedure Code (1861) introduced systems to maintain registers of so-called “dacoits and thugs.”
• The Criminal Tribes Act (CTA) of 1871 marked a turning point, labelling certain communities as inherently criminal.
• In 1924, this law was extended across India, exponentially increasing the number of criminalized communities.
• After India’s independence, the Criminal Tribes Act Enquiry Committee (1949-50) recommended repealing the CTA, emphasizing that habitual offender laws should not be caste-based.
• The CTA was officially repealed in 1952, and affected communities were reclassified as denotified, nomadic, and semi-nomadic tribes (DNTs, NTs, and SNTs).
• However, many states enacted their own habitual offender laws, including:
  • Madras Restriction of Habitual Offenders Act, 1948 (extended to Delhi in 1951)
  • Rajasthan’s Habitual Offenders Act, 1953
  • Similar laws in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, and others.
• These laws shifted from community-based classification to an individual-based approach, defining habitual offenders by their prior convictions.
• However, biases persisted, and DNTs continued facing discrimination.

Crimes That Led to ‘Habitual Offender’ Classification

• States adopted a schedule of crimes for which habitual offender classification could be invoked, including:
  • “Being a thug”
  • “Belonging to a gang of dacoits“
  • “Living on the earnings of prostitution”
• Several offenses under “lurking” and property crimes
• Authorities maintained registers, and state prison manuals referred to “habitual offenders.”
• Rajasthan’s manual explicitly included former “criminal tribe” members under this classification.

Case of Budhan Sabar and Calls for Change

• In 1998, Budhan Sabar, a member of a denotified tribe, died in police custody in West Bengal, sparking national outrage.
• This led to the formation of the Denotified and Nomadic Tribes Rights Action Group (DNT-RAG) by activists like Mahasweta Devi and G.N. Devy.
• The group advocated for the rights of DNTs and launched “Budhan” magazine, raising awareness about injustices.
• That same year, DNT-RAG petitioned the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the United Nations Secretary-General, highlighting ongoing police brutality against DNTs.
• In 2000, NHRC’s Advisory Group recommended repealing habitual offender laws.

International and National Reports on Habitual Offender Laws

• Several reports have called for repealing these laws due to their discriminatory impact:
  • 2007: The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination urged India to repeal these laws.
  • 2008: The S. Renke Commission noted the negative impact of habitual offender laws on DNTs.
  • 2014: The High-Level Committee of the Tribal Affairs Ministry, led by Professor Virginius Xaxa, noted that criminalization of DNTs persisted despite the repeal of the CTA.
  • 2020: Journalist Sukanya Santha reported caste discrimination in Indian prisons, filing a petition in the Supreme Court based on her findings.

Supreme Court’s 2024 Judgment and States’ Responses

• In October 2024, a Supreme Court Bench led by then-Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud made critical observations:
  • Stated that habitual offender laws replaced the CTA but still targeted denotified tribes.
  • Acknowledged the unfair classification of entire communities as “habitual offenders.”
  • Urged state governments to review and reconsider the necessity of these laws.

Following the judgment, states provided their stance to the Ministry of Home Affairs:

• Punjab: Has not implemented the law or maintained registers for five years.
• Odisha: No cases registered under the law in the past five years.
• Andhra Pradesh: No current prisoners under habitual offender laws.
• Goa: Justifies keeping the law, stating no DNTs exist there.
• Gujarat: Opposes repeal, asserting no intention to harass communities.
• Telangana: Defends the law as preventive.
• Uttar Pradesh: Claims provisions are already covered under the Goondas Act, making repeal irrelevant.

Statistical Insights

• According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) 2022,
  • 9% of India’s 1.29 lakh convict population is classified as habitual offenders.
  • Delhi has the highest proportion, with 5% of convicts labelled as habitual offenders.

Conclusion

Habitual offender laws unfairly target denotified tribes, prompting calls for repeal from the Supreme Court and human rights groups. While some states are phasing them out, others defend them, making urgent legal and judicial intervention necessary.

Source:

The Hindu

Mains Practice Question:

Discuss the historical evolution of habitual offender laws in India. How have these laws affected marginalized communities, and what steps can be taken for legal reforms?