Introduction
The marginalized community in India which is the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Schedule Tribe (ST) has face a lot of discrimination and atrocities. To ensure their well being and protection against such acts, the Constitution of India inherently provides a cluster of rights. It is under Articles 14 to 18 which are Right to Equality. Further, Article 46 provides for the promotion of education and economic interest amongst SCs, STs, and other weaker sections. Article 338 and Article 338A also establishes the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and National Commission for Scheduled Tribes respectively in India.
Additionally, the Parliament came up with the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the subsequent Rules, 1995. Thus, it becomes essential to review the popularly know “SC/ST Recall Verdict” or Union of India v State of Maharashtra[1] which is in turn the review petition of the decision of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs The State of Maharashtra[2] against the Amendments made to the Act recently.
Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs State of Maharashtra
The brief facts of the case are as follows. Mr. Mahajan, the petitioner belonge to Schedule Caste Community. While the people against whom the complaint was not from the same community. All of them worked together and the accused were seniors of the complainant. The accused were alleged to make some derogatory remarks against Mr. Mahajan in annual confidential reports. An FIR was filed against the two accused and the police took appropriate action in its pursuance. The aggrieved file another complaint against the state government. It state that they could only get sanction from there as they were class-1 officers.
The appellant has applied the quashing of such complaint but the same was set aside. So, herein in this case the court was to decide that could any action could be taken against officials who were acting in an official capacity. And what if the allegation made is false providing with a remedy for the same. The major issues were whether any mala fide allegation made against officers can be ground for prosecution. If such officers were acting within their official capacity? And what are the remedies for the same if it is proved that the complaint was mala fide?
The crux of the petition was the convenient misuse of the SC/ST Act. And the damage done due to such frivolous complaints on the accused.
The court studied a large number of judgments. The court observe that there were major cases leading to acquittal manifesting the misuse of the section. Mainly by the filing of false cases against innocent people. However, the possibility of victim threatening, or intimidation of witness was not commented upon by the court.
Verdict of Court
In short, it is establish that the Amendment was unconstitutional. There would not be any bar on anticipatory bail for the accused if no prima facie case is establish. It was also laid down that the arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority. And of a non-public servant after approval by the S.S.P. This may be grant in appropriate cases if consider necessary for reasons record. Such reasons must be scrutinized by the Magistrate for permitting further detention.
Further, to avoid false implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry may be conduct by the DSP. It is concern to find out whether the allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act. And that the allegations are not frivolous or motivate. Lastly, any violation of these above directions of the Court would be actionable by way of disciplinary action and contempt. All these guidelines are incorporate in the Supreme Court judgment itself in crystal clear terms.
Aftermath of the Judgement
The judgment led to a sense of dissatisfaction among the SC/ST community which further led to violent protests all over the nation resulting even in deaths of innocent. The Dalit community organized an all India bandh as well. They felt that their interest can no longer be protected as the judgment weakened the scope and powers under the SC/ST Act. They were of the view that the act was effectively “diluted” by such a judgment.
Looking at all this hue and cry situation existing in the country, the Parliament in a jiffy introduced the SCs and the STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018. Itintroduced Section 18A which puts a clear ban on anticipatory bails for the accused under the Act considering it as a non-bailable offense.
The Amendment had other provisions also like no need for approval requirement for making an arrest of the accused and no need for a preliminary inquiry before filing of FIR. This effectively nullified the Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case before a review could take place.
Filing of a Review Petition
Review means the very same Bench presides over the matter once again. When a higher court on appeal alters the judgment of a lower court, it is called ‘reversal.’ In the present
Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case the division bench consisted of Justice Adarsh Goel and Justice U U Lalit. However, as Justice Adarsh Goel, a new constitutional bench of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice M R Shah and Justice B R Gavai was constituted to preside over the matter.
Union of India v. State of Maharashtra
The state files the review petition on the grounds that the impugned Section 18A of the Act was brought on the force for the purpose of instilling a sense of protection amongst the SC/ST community.
The reason for filling the review was that firstly, the court used their extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution but there did not exist any such need to do the same. There was no legislative vacuum or lack of clarity in the present case. Secondly, the new guidelines provided seem to be more onerous than those found under the general law – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Lastly, the directions were impractical to be enforced.
Verdict of the Review Petition
In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the amendment bringing section 18A in force that puts a prohibition on pre-arrest bails of the accused as it does not form a fundamental right under Article 21 which safeguards the right to life referring to the Kartar Singh case[3].
The Court further went on to say that “the should not have encroached upon the field reserved for the legislature” Talking about the previous judgment and the unnecessary act of laying down the guidelines under the powers of Article 142. They also observed that the earlier judgment violated Article 15 of the Constitution which safeguards the SC/ST community from discrimination hence setting it aside. Thus, it is clearly puts a restriction on anticipatory bails in the case of the SC/ST Act.
The court agreed with the argument of impracticability and more onerous legislation. However, the court does recognize that that “liberty of one cannot be sacrificed to protect another” and ordered that neither is an FIR to be immediately registered nor are arrests to be made without a preliminary inquiry by an SSP. An arrest can only be made if there is “credible” information and the police officer has “reason to believe” that an offense was committed.
Latest Updates
The recent case of Prithvi Raj Chouhan vs Union of India[4], dated 10th February, 2020 challenged the validity of the 2018 Amendment Act on the grounds of violating Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The bench comprised of Justice Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, and S. Ravindra Bhat yet again upheld the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act.
References:
[1] AIR 2019 SC 4917.
[2] See, AIR 2018 SC 1498.
[3] AIR 1994 SCC (3) 569.
0 Comments