Labeling Theory
🔍 What is Labelling Theory? (Criminology)
Labelling Theory, rooted in sociology and criminology, suggests:
“Deviance is not inherent in an act, but is instead the result of the labels applied by society.”
In simple terms:
When society labels someone as a criminal, offender, or delinquent, that label may lead the person to internalize it and continue deviant behavior.
The reaction of society, law enforcement, and the judicial system plays a central role in creating a "criminal" rather than merely identifying one.
🔑 Key Concepts in Labelling Theory
| Concept | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Primary Deviance | Initial deviant act not yet labelled |
| Secondary Deviance | Deviance that occurs after societal labelling |
| Master Status | When the "label" becomes a person’s dominant identity |
| Self-fulfilling Prophecy | The person begins to act in line with the label |
📚 Application of Labelling Theory in Law
Courts may consider rehabilitation over punishment to avoid negative labeling, especially in:
Juvenile justice
First-time offenders
Petty crimes
Laws try to avoid unnecessary criminal labeling to prevent stigmatization.
Some legal reforms (e.g., plea bargaining, diversion schemes, community service) are influenced by this theory.
⚖️ Case Laws Reflecting Labelling Theory (4–5 Cases in Detail)
1. Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986) 3 SCC 632
Facts: This was a PIL filed by journalist Sheela Barse on behalf of children in jails. She reported that many juveniles were lodged with adult criminals, leading to long-term psychological and social harm.
Issue: Whether lodging juvenile offenders with hardened criminals violates their fundamental rights?
Judgment:
Supreme Court directed separation of juvenile offenders from adults in jails.
Emphasized that young offenders must be protected from exposure to criminal environments.
Advocated for rehabilitation, counseling, and reformation rather than punitive measures.
Labelling Theory Application:
The Court’s reasoning reflected concern over labelling children as criminals.
Recognized the danger of institutionalization and stigmatization.
2. Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2005) 3 SCC 551
Facts: The accused was a juvenile at the time of the offence but was tried as an adult.
Issue: Should the accused be treated under the Juvenile Justice Act to avoid criminal stigma?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the age at the time of offence is crucial, not the date of trial.
Juveniles must be dealt with under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
Labelling Theory Application:
The court tried to prevent a juvenile from being labelled a criminal.
Emphasized the corrective over punitive approach to avoid future deviance.
3. Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. (2007) 6 SCC 528
Facts: The appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (cheque bounce case) and ordered to undergo imprisonment.
Issue: Whether criminal prosecution for a civil wrong like cheque bounce unnecessarily labels an individual as a criminal?
Judgment:
The court emphasized compounding of offences under Section 138.
Stressed the civil nature of the transaction and allowed for settlement.
Labelling Theory Application:
The court showed judicial restraint from over-criminalizing.
Tried to avoid the stigma of criminal conviction where the offence is civil in origin.
4. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
Facts: A death sentence was challenged on the grounds of being arbitrary and inhumane.
Issue: Should courts consider the possibility of reformation in sentencing?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of the "rarest of rare" case for capital punishment.
Emphasized that death penalty should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
Labelling Theory Application:
Implicitly aligned with the idea that not every offender should be permanently labeled as beyond reformation.
Reinforced the principle of giving the convict a chance to reform.
5. Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 1926
Facts: Convict was sentenced without consideration of rehabilitation prospects.
Issue: Should reformation be considered in sentencing?
Judgment:
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer emphasized rehabilitation over retribution.
Courts must consider the socio-economic background and capacity for reform.
Labelling Theory Application:
Strongly reflected labelling theory by urging courts to prevent branding individuals as irredeemable.
Encouraged viewing crime as a social phenomenon, not just legal.
📌 Summary Table of Case Laws and Labelling Elements
| Case | Key Concept | Labelling Aspect |
|---|---|---|
| Sheela Barse v. UOI | Juvenile protection | Preventing early criminal identity |
| Pratap Singh v. State | Juvenile age criteria | Avoiding adult trial for juveniles |
| Dilip Dahanukar v. Kotak | Civil nature of offence | Avoiding over-labelling for cheque bounce |
| Bachan Singh v. State | Sentencing jurisprudence | Reformation over permanent labelling |
| Mohd. Giasuddin v. State | Socio-legal sentencing | Rehabilitation focus, not branding |
🧠 Final Thoughts on Labelling Theory in Indian Context
Indian courts are increasingly sensitive to stigmatisation, especially in juvenile and white-collar offences.
Reforms like the Juvenile Justice Act, Probation of Offenders Act, and plea bargaining are rooted in the idea of avoiding permanent labels.
Judges, police, and society have a key role in ensuring that an accused isn’t irreversibly marginalized.
RELATED Blog
0 comments