Habitual Offender Laws

March 22, 2025

The Supreme Court of India has raised concerns regarding laws associated with classifications of habitual offenders. As of March 2025, 14 States and Union Territories continue to enforce these classifications. The Supreme Court previously deemed the classification constitutionally suspect, particularly in its impact on denotified tribes.

Origin of Habitual Offender Classification

The concept of habitual offenders dates back to the late 18th century. Regulation XXII of 1793 allowed magistrates to imprison certain communities based on mere suspicion. The Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 formalised the classification, labelling entire tribes as criminal. Despite the repeal of these laws in 1952, many States enacted their own habitual offender laws, focusing on individual convictions rather than community status.

Post-Independence Developments

Despite CTA repeal, states enacted “habitual offender” laws (e.g., Madras in 1948, Rajasthan in 1953).
1965 Lokur Committee still viewed DNTs as having an “anti-social heritage.”
1998 Custodial Death of Budhan Sabar triggered national outrage against these laws.
1998: NHRC and UN Secretary-General were petitioned against these laws.
2000: NHRC recommended repealing them.
2007: UN urged India to remove such laws.
2014: Virginius Xaxa Committee highlighted persistent discrimination against DNTs due to these laws.

Evolution

States like Gujarat and Rajasthan have maintained habitual offender laws, while others like Punjab have begun to repeal them. The laws were initially intended to prevent crime but have often led to the systemic targeting of specific communities. The classification has persisted in prison systems, where individuals from denotified tribes continue to face discrimination.

Supreme Court’s Stance and Recommendations

In October 2024, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the application of habitual offender laws. The Court noted that these laws often target members of denotified tribes, perpetuating a cycle of criminalisation. It urged State governments to reassess the necessity of such laws, denoting the need for reform.

Reactions from State Governments

Responses from various State governments have varied. Some, like Punjab and Odisha, have ceased implementation of the laws, citing a lack of necessity. Others, like Gujarat, maintain the laws for preventive purposes. The National Crime Records Bureau indicates that a small percentage of convicts are classified as habitual offenders, with variation across States.

Current Status and Future Directions

As of now, the debate over habitual offender laws continues. While some States have progressed toward repeal, others remain resistant. The Supreme Court’s observations may prompt further legislative changes. The ongoing discussion reflects broader themes of social justice and the need for inclusive legal frameworks.

« Previous Post Next Post »