Habitual Offender Laws

Sub : Polity

Sec : Legislation in new

Context:

Habitual offender laws classify certain individuals as repeat criminals based on past convictions.
The Supreme Court (SC) has questioned the constitutional validity of these laws, highlighting their misuse against denotified tribes (DNTs).
As of March 2025, such laws continue to operate in 14 States and Union Territories (UTs).
Some States, like Gujarat, argue for their continuation, while others, like Punjab, are in the process of repealing them.

Supreme Court’s Observations on Habitual Offender Laws

In October 2024, while addressing caste discrimination in jails, the Supreme Court noted that habitual offender laws were “constitutionally suspect” and used to “target members of denotified tribes.”
The Court observed that these laws replaced the Criminal Tribes Act but continued to associate members of certain communities with crime.
It explicitly stated, “A whole community ought not to have either been declared a criminal tribe in the past or a habitual offender in the present.”
Urged States to review the necessity of such laws.

Origin of the ‘Habitual Offender’ Classification

Colonial-Era Criminalisation of Communities

Regulation XXII of 1793:
- Gave magistrates the power to imprison or force certain communities into labor based on suspicion.
Indian Penal Code (1860) & Criminal Procedure Code (1861):
- Created mechanisms to maintain registers of “dacoits and thugs.”
Criminal Tribes Act (CTA) of 1871:
- First introduced the term “criminal tribe.”
- Allowed authorities to declare a gang, a tribe, or a class of people as criminals.
- Strengthened in later years and expanded to all of colonial India in 1924, exponentially increasing the number of criminalized communities.

Post-Independence Developments

Criminal Tribes Act Enquiry Committee Report (1949-50):
- Recommended repealing the CTA and enacting a central law for habitual offenders, irrespective of caste or birth.
1952:
- The CTA was repealed, and affected communities were reclassified as Denotified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (DNT, NT, SNT).
States introduced “habitual offender” laws:
- Madras Restriction of Habitual Offenders Act, 1948 (extended to Delhi in 1951).
- Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953.
- Similar laws were adopted by Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Karnataka, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, etc., over the next two decades.
Lokur Committee Report (1965):
- Despite reforms, it still described DNTs as communities with an “anti-social heritage” and an “affinity for crime.”

Criteria for Declaring a ‘Habitual Offender’

Habitual offender laws across States included crimes such as:
- “Being a thug.”
- “Belonging to a gang of dacoits.”
- “Living on the earnings of prostitution.”
- Multiple entries on “lurking.”
Registers were maintained, and prison manuals incorporated rules for treating habitual offenders, often continuing to target erstwhile “criminal tribes.”
Example: Rajasthan’s jail manual explicitly allowed DNT members to be designated as habitual offenders.

Controversy and Resistance Against Habitual Offender Laws

Budhan Sabar Case (1998) and the Rise of Activism

1998: Budhan Sabar, a member of a denotified community in West Bengal, died in custody, leading to national outrage.
Denotified and Nomadic Tribes Rights Action Group (DNT-RAG) was formed by Mahasweta Devi and G.N. Devy to advocate for these communities.
A magazine ‘Budhan’ was launched to highlight issues faced by DNTs.

Petition to NHRC and United Nations (1998-2000)

In 1998, DNT-RAG wrote to:
- National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
- United Nations Secretary-General
The letter highlighted how police and society continued to treat DNTs as ‘born criminals’ and ‘habitual criminals’ despite the repeal of the CTA.
The NHRC formed an Advisory Group in 2000, which concluded that habitual offender laws should be repealed.

International and National Reports Against the Law

United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2007):
- Called for the repeal of habitual offender laws due to their discriminatory use.
B.S. Renke Commission (2008):
- Noted how these laws continued to negatively impact DNT communities.
Virginius Xaxa Committee (2014):
- Reported that the stigma of criminality attached to DNTs persisted due to habitual offender laws.
Sukanya Santha’s 2020 Report:
- Documented caste-based discrimination in prisons, including the treatment of habitual offenders.
- Filed a petition in SC, prompting the Court’s 2024 observations.

State-Wise Responses to Habitual Offender Laws

States Repealing or Discontinuing the Law

States Opposing Repeal

Gujarat: Argued against repealing the law, stating that its intent is not to harass.
Goa: Claimed that since there are no DNTs in the State, misuse is not possible.
Telangana: Called the law “preventative.”
Uttar Pradesh: Claimed that since all habitual offender provisions are covered under the Goondas Act, repeal is irrelevant.

NCRB Data (2022) on Habitual Offenders

1.9% of India’s 1.29 lakh convict population is classified as habitual offenders.
Delhi has the highest proportion (21.5%).