“Habitual Offender” Classification Is Constitutionally Suspect: Supreme Court Flags Gaps In Model Prison Manual 2016
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court highlighted several lacunae in the Model Prison Manual 2016, specifically concerning the classification of "habitual offenders" and its potential for reinforcing caste-based discrimination in India's prisons.
The Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra declared certain provisions of the Manual unconstitutional and directed all State Governments and Union Territories to amend their prison manuals in compliance with the ruling within three months.
"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 changes in the manuals/rules in line with this judgment, within a period of three months," the Bench ordered.
One of the Court’s primary concerns was the definition of “habitual offender” in the 2016 Manual, which broadly categorizes habitual offenders alongside dangerous criminals, including gangsters, hired assassins, and serial offenders. The Court noted that many prison manuals across states equate habitual offenders with individuals from denotified or wandering tribes, leading to discriminatory treatment without any legal basis.
The Court critiqued the classification system, emphasizing that "habitual offenders" must be defined solely in accordance with the specific habitual offender legislation of each state, and any vague or unconstitutional references must be removed. In states where such legislation does not exist, the Court ordered the government to revise the manuals accordingly.
"The Manual mandates the classification of undertrial prisoners in three categories, wherein habitual offenders are tagged along with “Gangsters, hired Assassins, dacoits, serial killers/rapists/violent robbers, drug offenders, communal fanatics and those highly prone to escapes/ previous escapees/attack on police and other dangerous offenders/including those prone to self-harm/posing threat to public order”.The habitual offenders are tagged in the same category in relation to classification of high risk offenders and for determination of the level of security for effective surveillance. Similarly, regarding the women prisoners, it has been provided that “Habitual offenders shall be separated from casual prisoners” and that “Habitual offenders, prostitutes and brothel keepers must also be confined separately," the Court noted.
It also expressed concern over the Manual’s failure to explicitly prohibit caste-based segregation of prisoners, except for female inmates. While the chapter on women prisoners prohibits classification based on caste, no such safeguard exists for male prisoners, which the Court found troubling, given the persistence of caste-based discrimination in prisons across the country.
"The Manual does not explicitly prohibit physical caste-based segregation of prisoners, except in prisons for women. Only the chapter on “Women Prisoners” provides that “[n]o classification of prisoners shall be allowed on grounds of socioeconomic status, caste or class”. This is concerning, as the Manual was prepared in 2016, when prison manuals in different States mandated caste-based division of prisoners, as indicated in our analysis in the previous section. The Manual of 2016 therefore should have adopted a specific provision prohibiting the classification of prisoners on the basis of caste for all prisoners, as it does in the case of women prisoners," the Court observed.
Furthermore, the Manual’s prohibition of caste-based discrimination was found to be inconsistent, especially concerning the division of labor. While it bans discrimination in cooking-related tasks, it fails to address caste-based allocation of other prison labor, which continues in many state manuals. The Court stressed that the Model Prison Manual should have included specific provisions prohibiting caste-based work assignments for all prisoners, not just in kitchens.
"The Manual does not prohibit division of work on the basis of caste, except in cooking. Para 2.12.4 provides that “Management of kitchen or cooking of food on caste or religious basis shall be prohibited in prisons”. Similarly, for women prisons, para 26.45 provides “Management of kitchens or cooking food on caste or religious basis should be strictly banned in prisons for women”. In effect, prohibition of caste discrimination in kitchens shall also apply to allotment of work to cooks. However, the Manual does not prohibit discrimination on the allotment of work other than cooking. As analysed, various prison manuals in different States specify different work to people on the basis of caste. The Model Manual 2016 should have taken into account such practices and provided specifically for their prohibition," the Bench said.
Cause Title: Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Anr. [Neutral Citation No. 2024 INSC 753]
Click here to read/download the Judgment
