2020 (2) TMI 1705 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds SC/ST Act provision, clarifies anticipatory bail rules, emphasizes protective discrimination.

Prathvi Raj Chauhan Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and clarified the ... Interpretation of statute - provisions inserted by way of carving out Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As per Arun Mishra, J. HELD THAT:- The Section 18A(i) was inserted owing to the decision of this Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath [2018 (3) TMI 2005 - SUPREME COURT], which made it necessary to obtain the approval of the appointing authority concerning a public servant and the SSP in the case of arrest of Accused persons. This Court has also recalled that direction on Review Petition (Crl.) No. 228 of 2018 decided on 1.10.2019. Thus, the provisions which have been made in Section 18A are rendered of academic use as they were enacted to take care of mandate issued in Dr. Subhash Kashinath (supra) which no more prevails. The provisions were already in Section 18 of the Act with respect to anticipatory bail. Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by Section 18 and 18A(i) shall not apply - The court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argument to the contrary has been raised. The challenge to the provisions has been rendered academic - Petition disposed off. As per S. Ravindra Bhat, J. HELD THAT:- It is important to keep oneself reminded that while sometimes (perhaps mostly in urban areas) false accusations are made, those are not necessarily reflective of the prevailing and wide spread social prejudices against members of these oppressed classes. Significantly, the amendment of 2016, in the expanded definition of 'atrocity', also lists pernicious practices (Under Section 3) including forcing the eating of inedible matter, dumping of excreta near the homes or in the neighbourhood of members of such communities and several other forms of humiliation, which members of such scheduled caste communities are subjected to. All these considerations far outweigh the Petitioners' concern that innocent individuals would be subjected to what are described as arbitrary processes of investigation and legal proceedings, without adequate safeguards. The right to a trial with all attendant safeguards are available to those Accused of committing offences under the Act; they remain unchanged by the enactment of the amendment. As far as the provision of Section 18A and anticipatory bail is concerned, the judgment of Mishra, J, has stated that in cases where no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the court has the inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail. It is important to reiterate and emphasize that unless provisions of the Act are enforced in their true letter and spirit, with utmost earnestness and dispatch, the dream and ideal of a casteless society will remain only a dream, a mirage. The marginalization of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe communities is an enduring exclusion and is based almost solely on caste identities. It is to address problems of a segmented society, that express provisions of the Constitution which give effect to the idea of fraternity, or bandhutva referred to in the Preamble, and statutes like the Act, have been framed. Petition disposed off. Issues Involved1. Validity of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.2. Interpretation of anticipatory bail provisions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to the Act.3. The impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra and its subsequent review.4. Protective discrimination and the constitutional mandate under Articles 14, 15, 17, and 21.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis1. Validity of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989The Petitioners challenged the provisions of Section 18A, arguing it was enacted to nullify the judgment in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra, which had provided safeguards against misuse of the Act. The Supreme Court noted that the provisions in Section 18A were introduced following the judgment in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, primarily due to directions (iii) to (v) in paragraph 83 of that judgment. However, these directions had been recalled in the review petitions, rendering the matter of academic importance. The Court emphasized that protective discrimination is permissible, but reverse discrimination is not. The provisions of Section 18A were upheld, noting that they were intended to restore the legal position before the judgment in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan.2. Interpretation of Anticipatory Bail Provisions Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureThe Court reiterated that Section 18 of the Act excludes the applicability of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences under the Act. However, it clarified that if no prima facie case is made out, the bar under Sections 18 and 18A(i) does not apply. The Court affirmed that in exceptional cases, it could exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent misuse of the Act. This interpretation aligns with the legal position before the judgment in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan.3. Impact of the Supreme Court's Decision in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of MaharashtraThe judgment in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan had introduced safeguards, such as requiring approval for arrest and preliminary inquiries to prevent misuse of the Act. These directions were later recalled in the review petitions, restoring the legal position to what it was before the judgment. The Court emphasized that the directions had encroached upon the legislative domain and were against the protective discrimination envisaged under the Constitution. The recall of these directions reaffirmed the legislative intent behind the Act and its amendments.4. Protective Discrimination and Constitutional MandateThe Court discussed the historical and social context of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, emphasizing the need for protective discrimination under Articles 14, 15, 17, and 21 of the Constitution. It highlighted the ongoing discrimination and atrocities faced by these communities, justifying the stringent provisions of the Act. The Court noted that the Act and its amendments aim to provide effective protection and ensure equality, dignity, and fraternity as envisioned by the Constitution. The judgment underscored that the exclusion of anticipatory bail under Section 18 is not violative of Articles 14 and 21, as these offences form a distinct class requiring special provisions.ConclusionThe Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and clarified the interpretation of anticipatory bail provisions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court reaffirmed the legislative intent and constitutional mandate for protective discrimination, emphasizing the need for stringent measures to protect the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from ongoing discrimination and atrocities. The judgment also highlighted the importance of fraternity and equality in achieving a casteless society.