The Madhya Pradesh High Court has admitted a Public Interest Litigation challenging the practice of recording the caste of the accused in First Information Reports and other official documents. The petition alleges that this practice amounts to “institutional discrimination” against the Sondhiya Rajput community. According to the petitioner, an analysis of police records, FIRs, and state-issued communications shows a recurring pattern where individuals from this community are disproportionately targeted, cited by name, and publicly stigmatized.
The bench, presided over by Justice Pranay Verma, has directed that notices be served to the respondents. The court ordered that process fees be paid via the court’s RAD (Receive and Dispatch) mode within seven working days. If not, the petition stands dismissed automatically. Once notices are issued, the matter will be returnable in eight weeks, giving the respondents ample time to file their replies.
The petitioner contends that in the police’s administrative correspondence and public statements, the Sondhiya Rajput community has repeatedly been branded as “ruffians.” These references, he argues, have been given wide publicity in government press releases, endangering the reputation of the community and exposing them to social stigma. The PIL claims that this is not a series of isolated incidents, but rather a systematic pattern: within a span of six months, over 80% of five significant FIRs involved individuals from the Sondhiya Rajput caste, according to the petitioner’s survey of records.
Further, the petition raises serious concerns about the lack of objective criteria or legitimate justification for this targeting. It argues that public authorities are exercising prosecutorial discretion in a discriminatory manner, by crafting FIRs and public communications that disproportionately highlight caste. The petitioner asserts that this practice violates the right to equality under the Constitution, as enshrined in Article 14, because the use of caste names appears arbitrary, non-transparent, and prejudicial.
To address this alleged institutional bias, the PIL seeks a set of reforms. It calls on the State to issue a formal direction to refrain from naming caste in FIRs and public statements, especially where there is no legal necessity for doing so. The petition asks for the formulation of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) or anti-discrimination guidelines specifically for use by senior police officers. Training programs for law enforcement personnel on constitutional obligations and non-discrimination are also demanded. In addition, the petitioner proposes anti-discrimination protocols to ensure that police and state agencies handle FIR drafting and press communications in a manner that does not single out any caste unfairly.
The PIL also requests that the court restrain the State from issuing press releases that mention caste names in a derogatory manner or portray the Sondhiya Rajput community as inherently criminal. The broader goal, according to the petition, is to curb what is claimed to be institutionalized profiling, which adversely impacts members of the community by perpetuating negative stereotypes and undermining their dignity.
The admission of the petition by the High Court reflects judicial recognition of the seriousness of these grievances. By issuing notice and scheduling returns, the court has taken an active role in scrutinizing the state’s practices around FIR drafting and public communication, especially regarding the recurrent inclusion of caste names of accused persons.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.