Prefix 18-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018, Judgement Review, Prithviraj Chauhan v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India
The article reviews the judgement in the case of Prithviraj Chauhan v. Union of India, [SCC 159 (2020)]. The author of this Judgement Review is Amaljith V who is a sixth semester student of three year LLB at Govt. Law College, Ernakulam.
Prithviraj Chauhan v. Union of India, [SCC 159 (2020)]
CASE NO. – WP(C) 1015/2018 DATE OF DECISION– 10 February, 2020, Supreme Court of India
INTRODUCTION
The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is an Act to thwart the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. This act also provides for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and provides strict penal measures for offenders. The act also provides for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences. The Act does not have anticipatory bail provision for offences registered under it.
Factual Analysis
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of section 18-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 on the ground that the provisions of Prevention of Atrocities Act were misused. The petition was framed on the ground that section 18-A of the Act nullifies the decision in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra & anr.
Several safeguards were introduced in Kashinath Mahajan’s case against the misuse of the provisions of the Act, but it was overturned by the parliament by inserting section 18 – A to the Act.
The safeguards were,
- Conduct of preliminary inquiry before registration of First Information Report
- Investigating officer should receive approval before arrest.
- Anticipatory bail to accused, notwithstanding any judgement or order or direction of any court
The aim of Kashinath Mahajan Judgement was to prevent the people from abusing the Act. But the subsequent amendment to the Act diluted the effect. After the passing of Kashinath Mahajan the parliament took a step to undo the judgement as the step taken by the parliament to undo the judgement caused so much violence and thousands took to street and protest across India by the Dalits and Adivasis group and placed the amendment bill in the parliament.
The outcry was so severe that Parliament did not even wait for the Supreme Court to hear a review petition which was filed before the Supreme Court challenging the judgement.
The Supreme court further issued notice on 7th September, 2018 to the central government to submit its response to the petition. In response to the notice, the central government filed an affidavit. Several petitions were filed challenging the 2018 Amendment.
Issues
- Does the absolute bar on grant of anticipatory bail for the accused arbitrary and unjust and violating Article 14 of the Constitution?
- Does the bar on anticipatory bail infringe the personal liberty of an individual who has been booked under the Act without any ground?
- Whether the power of automatic arrest violates the safeguards under sections 41 and 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1908? Does it violate the protection of reasonable procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution?
Legal Provisions in Question
- Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, 1989 – Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act.—Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act.
- Article 21 of the Constitution – Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
Arguments in favour of Petitioners
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the safeguards introduced in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. was necessary as the Act was misused a lot. Further contended that the absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail will result in violation of fundamental right granted under Article 21 of Constitution relating to Personal liberty of a person.
Arguments in favour of Respondent
Attorney General KK Venugopal on behalf of Central Government contended that the amendment was made due to large number of acquittal cases and police failed to implement the act properly and prosecution of accused was also not effective. They further argued that the amendment is in conformity with the aim of the act which states for the protection of the SC/ST section of the society.
Judgement
The three-judge bench of Supreme Court of India has sustained the Constitutional validity of section 18-A of “The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,2018” and had nullified the effect of Kashinath Mahajan’s case. The court also held that the guidelines laid down in the Kashinath Mahajan case had placed superfluous burden upon people belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes. While dealing with the section 18-A of the Act, the court said that while looking into the provision of section 18 with respect to preliminary inquiry before registration of FIR, the inquiry is permissible only in conditions laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P.
CONCLUSION
Court further held that no anticipatory bail should be given for offences committed against the people belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes covered under the SC/ST Amendment Act. Justice Ravindra Bhat observed that anticipatory bail can only be given in the exceptional cases and not in every case. The court had earlier observed that the anticipatory bail can only be granted where there is no prime facie case under SC/ST Act. While delivering the judgement, he also spoke about equal treatment to all citizens and fostering the idea of fraternity because the concept of fraternity is equally essential as the personal liberty of a person. Court further held that if an accused is a public servant, the arrest can only be made after the approval of appointing authority and if the accused is non-public servant, the arrest can be made after the permission of the Senior Superintendent of Police.
