Introduction

The case revolves around the ‘Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 and the amendment act of 2018 which was done to nullify the effect of a judgment passed by Maharashtra High in the case of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharastra[1].

The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989[2] was enacted to impede and stop the atrocities and discrimination done to the schedule caste and Schedule tribe people. This act was enacted because the existing statute such as IPC and Crpc was not meeting and was not able to stop the hate feeling against the schedule caste and schedule tribe people. The period from the 1950s to 1990s witnessed a lot of heinous and atrocious crimes against this community. For example, cleansing of Namshudhra Community[3] from West Bengal. Uttar Pradesh and Bihar also witnessed several monstrous atrocities. Henceforth, the parliament enacted this statute in order to prohibit the atrocities against them.

Background

High Court of Maharashtra in 2018 pronounced a verdict in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State Of Maharashtra in which some provisions of Prevention of Atrocities Act,1989 was diluted as it was observed by the court that The act prevention of atrocities act 1989 was misused by people and because of its implication some innocent people were punished regardless of committing any wrong. However, it was contented by several law researchers that this judgment toned out the effectiveness of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. However, after the judgment, there was a widespread protest by advasis and schedule class people therefore the parliament in order to nullify the effect of the case brought an amendment, officially named ST/SC(prevention of atrocities Act) 2018. In this amendment, the parliament added 18A in the act which nullified the effect of the case.

Facts

The petitioner Prithviraj Chauhan challenged the St/Sc (poa) amendment act[4] and section 18 A of the POA Act which was inserted by the same amendment act. The amendment of 18 mainly brought 3 changes

1.     There should not be any preliminary inquiry  required to register an FIR against any person accused under the PoA Act

2.     The investigating officers require the approval of neither the appointing authority nor the Superintendent of Police to arrest any person accused under the Act

3.     There is a bar on granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to any person accused under the Act[5].

Thus The Petitioners had questioned the provisions inserted by way of carving out Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (Act of 1989) dealing with the applicability of Section 438 of Code, preliminary inquiry and approval of arrest in relation with persons committing offense under 1989 Act.

Issues

 

1.     Whether the ST/Sc Act is violating the fundamental rights?

2.     Whether anticipatory bail under section 438 CrpC for offenses registered under Atrocities Act 1989 is legally valid/

3.     Whether protective discrimination to SC/ST individuals vis directions issued in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case is constitutionally valid?

4.     Whether the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act of 2018 is constitutionally valid?

Law

A.    Article 14

B.    Article 15

C.    483 of CrpC

D.    SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989

E.     Article 21

Judgment

In this case, the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India upheld the Constitutional validity of section 18-A of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,2018, and nullified the effect of the Kashinath Mahajan case. The Apex court held that the verdict given in the Kashinath Mahajan case had put an unnecessary burden upon people of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes.

About section 18-A of the Act, the court said that-looking into the provision of section 18 concerning preliminary inquiry before lodging an FIR, the inquiry is permissible only in conditions laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P[6].

Court also stated that no anticipatory bail shall be given for offenses under SC/ST Amendment Act. In the concurring opinion, Justice Ravindra Bhat stated that anticipatory bail can only be given in exceptional cases and not in all the cases. The court had already stated that the anticipatory bail can only be granted where there is no prima facie case under SC/SCT Act.

Justice Ravindra Bhat also said about equal treatment of all citizens and imbibing the idea of fraternity because the concept of fraternity is as important as the personal liberty of a person.

Court held that if an accused happens to be a public servant then in that case arrest can only be made after the approval of appointing authority and if the accused is a non-public servant then, in that case, the arrest shall be made after the permission of the Senior Superintendent of Police.

Analysis

The previous judgment, Dr. Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra toned out the effectiveness of the ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act which was made to maintain equality by the means of Equal protection of Law. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution states that there should be equality before the law, which means that the lex loci of the country treat everyone equally. In the overruled judgment of Dr. Kashi Nath, it was contended by the learned judge and the counsel that the POA Act is not treating everyone equally, henceforth the provisions of the Act were diluted. However, they did not include the second and crucial part of article 14 which is equal protection of the law. In simple terms having an egalitarian society rather than formal equality. This means, proportional equality. People who have unequal circumstances (not privileged) shall not be treated on par. Hence, refrains discrimination among people of the same circumstances.

In the present case, the Statute is trying to make the society egalitarian by protecting the SC/ST people thus, it is following equal protection of law mentioned in Article14. The Judgement delivered in this case overruled the case of Dr. Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra and upheld the constitutional validity of section 18 A of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe ( Prevention of atrocities Act). The Judgement was laudable because it restricted unnecessary burden imposed on the depressed section of the society. We often hear cases in which an upper caste person imposed fabricated false evidence with intent to deceive the law. Thus, in order to protect them, we need a rigid law that should not be diluted. Hence, in the case of Prithviraj Chauhan v Union of India, the court proclaimed the validity of 18A of the Act and overruled the judgment given in Dr. Kashinath Mahajan v State v Maharashtra which was laudable.

Conclusion

The judgment delivered by the apex court was correct according to my opinion because we get to hear a lot of instances where the right of SC/ST community has been grossly violated. In some instances, we see that injustice is not only done to men but also to women and children. Moreover, some innocent people of this community caught in the vicious trap made by some people and lost their basic rights. The judgment by Maharastra High Court was biased towards this community and therefore it was meant to be overruled keeping the veil of ignorance in consideration and it finally the apex court came out with laudatory judgment.


[1] DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Supreme Court Of India) Criminal Appeal No. 000416-000416 / 2018 | 20-03-2018

[2] The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989

[3] https://thewire.in/history/west-bengal-violence-marichjhapi-dandakaranya

[4] The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) amendment Act,2018

[5] https://www.scobserver.in/court-case/challenge-to-sc-st-atrocity-act-amendment/sc-st-amendment-plain-english-summary-of-judgment

[6] Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013

About the Author: This Case Brief is prepared by Soumya Sakshi, law student at Christ University. She can be reached at soumyasakshi1902@gmail.com

MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our whats app group .You can also subscribe for our Newsletter for Email Updates. 

 For More Case Briefs, Click Here