How the habitual offender laws originated and evolved in India?

• Habitual offender – A person repeatedly convicted of crimes.

According to National Crime Records Bureau’s prison statistics 2022 - About 1.9% of India’s 1.29 lakh convict population have been classified as “habitual offenders”. The highest proportion was seen in Delhi, where 21.5% of convicts are classified as such.

• Beginning of criminalising communities – It began with Regulation XXII of 1793 in India.
• It gave magistrates “summary powers” to put to work or imprison certain communities or tribes based on suspicion alone.
• Evolution – The Indian Penal Code of 1860 and the Criminal Procedure Code of 1861 set up the mechanism to maintain a register of “dacoits and thugs” which culminated into Criminal Tribes Act.
• Criminal Tribes Act (CTA), 1871 – The phrase ‘criminal tribe’ was 1^st referred, and the system of registration began.
• It provided for “a gang, a tribe, or a class of people” to be declared criminal.
• In 1924, it was applied to all of colonial India which increased the number of communities declared “criminal” exponentially.

Criminal Tribes Act Enquiry Committee Report (1949-50) recommended the repealing of the Criminal Tribes Act and encouraged “central legislation applicable to all habitual offenders without any distinction based on caste, creed, or birth”.

• Independent India – In 1952, based on Criminal Tribes Act Enquiry Committee Report, the Government of India repealed all criminal tribes laws across the country.
• It left the communities notified under these laws to be classified as “denotified, nomadic, and semi-nomadic” (DNT, NT, SNT) tribes.
• In states – The Madras Restriction of Habitual Offenders Act, 1948, was extended to Delhi in 1951.
  • Rajasthan passed a similar law in 1953, and over the next 2 decades Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Karnataka, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, etc. had adopted laws.
• Reframing of definition – All state laws moved away from the premise of classifying communities as “prone to crime”, by defining a “habitual offender” in terms of the convictions they have had.

How states in India police habitual crimes?

• Defines schedule of crimes – Being a thug, belonging to a gang of dacoits, living on the earnings of prostitution, and half-a-dozen entries on lurking.
• Procedural structure – Registers were maintained, and rules and regulations were formulated by States on how ‘habitual offenders’ were to be treated within prisons.
• It lead to jail manuals across the country adopting the language of “habitual offenders”.
• Some of them explicitly allowed for erstwhile “criminal tribe” community members to be designated as “habitual offenders”.
  • For example in Rajasthan.

What is the current response of its legality in India?

• Supporting states – This law continue to operate across at least 14 States and Union Territories in India.
  • Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Goa, Rajasthan, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka and Telangana, among others.

In 1998, the custodial death of Budhan Sabar, a member of a denotified community in West Bengal, led to national outrage over the concept of habitual offenders” and how it was being used by the police.

• Opposing states – Some states says that the law is practically redundant and not implemented by them.
  • Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana.
• A total of 9 States have reported that there are no “habitual offender” laws in their State, or that they had never been enacted, or that there were no tribals in their jurisdictions.
  • West Bengal, Assam, Mizoram, Tripura, Bihar and Sikkim.
• Further, the legislation had been repealed in Haryana and Ladakh.
• Supreme Court – In 2024, on caste-segregation in prisons, it had questioned the very basis of a “habitual offender” classification.
• It noted that the provisions was “constitutionally suspect”, given the “vague and broad language”, “which is used to target members of denotified tribes”.
• It had asked States to reconsider the use, further asking if it was needed at all.

What lies ahead?

• Reviewing relevance – States should conduct an objective analysis of the relevance of habitual offender laws.
• Fair legislation – States can ensure that legal frameworks do not stigmatise entire communities.
• Empowerment programs – Alternative crime-prevention methods like rehabilitation and social reintegration programs can be initiated.
• Sensitisation – Training can be given to police forces to prevent discrimination against Denotified Tribes.

References

1. The Hindu| Legality and Status of Habitual Offender Laws in India
2. The Hindu| Historical Background of Habitual Offender Laws