Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Supreme Court Upholds SC/ST Act Amendments, Clarifies Anticipatory Bail

/ Anticipatory Bail, Arun Mishra, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 482, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 15, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 18, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 18A

Supreme Court Upholds SC/ST Act Amendments, Clarifies Anticipatory Bail LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of amendments to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the extent of the bar on anticipatory bail. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Constitutional Law Case Name: Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 10 […]

Supreme Court Upholds SC/ST Act Amendments, Clarifies Anticipatory Bail Read Post »

Supreme Court Revisits Atrocities Act Guidelines: Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

/ Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 41, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Fundamental Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah, Relief and rehabilitation of victims, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 18, Separation of Powers

Supreme Court Revisits Atrocities Act Guidelines: Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Review of guidelines regarding arrests under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Constitutional Law Case Name: Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [Judgment Date]: 01 October 2019

Supreme Court Revisits Atrocities Act Guidelines: Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Narad Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh (10 May 2019)

/ Arun Mishra, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 294, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(1)(x), Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Narad Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) Date of the Judgment: 10 May 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 448 Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Can a person be convicted under Section 3(1)(x)

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Narad Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh (10 May 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Doubtful Identification: State of Gujarat vs. Kalusinh (2019) INSC 417 (02 May 2019)

/ Arms Act, Arms Act with Section 25(c), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, R. Banumathi, S. Abdul Nazeer, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(1)(x)

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Doubtful Identification Date of the Judgment: 02 May 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 417 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J. Can a person be convicted of a crime if their identification is doubtful? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Doubtful Identification: State of Gujarat vs. Kalusinh (2019) INSC 417 (02 May 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Minimum Sentence Under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Vikram Das (8 February 2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Minimum Sentence, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(1)(xi)

Supreme Court Upholds Minimum Sentence Under SC/ST Act: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Vikram Das (2019) Date of the Judgment: 8 February 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 100 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J. Can a High Court reduce a sentence below the minimum prescribed by law? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Upholds Minimum Sentence Under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Vikram Das (8 February 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court reduces sentence in Atrocities case based on Complainant’s Affidavit: Mallanna & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2018)

/ Hemant Gupta, Indian Penal Code, Indian Penal Code with Section 34, Indian Penal Code with Section 354, Indian Penal Code with Section 448, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(1)(x), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(1)(xi)

Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Atrocities Case Based on Complainant’s Affidavit: Mallanna & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Can a conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 be modified based on a compromise affidavit by the complainant? CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Atrocities Case Name: Mallanna &

Supreme Court reduces sentence in Atrocities case based on Complainant’s Affidavit: Mallanna & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Witness Statements: Shanker vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Offences Against Human Body, S. Abdul Nazeer, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(2)(5)

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Witness Statements LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of the accused can be sustained when there are material contradictions in the statements of the key prosecution witnesses. CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal Case Name: Shanker vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Judgment Date: April 18, 2018 Date of

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Witness Statements: Shanker vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies safeguards against misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in service matters (20 March 2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 41, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 438, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 182, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 193, Judges, Offences Against Public Justice, Offences under the Atrocities Act, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 18, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(1)(ix), Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Safeguards Against Misuse of the Atrocities Act LEGAL ISSUE: Safeguards against misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Service Law Case Name: Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. [Judgment Date]: 20 March 2018 Can a public servant

Supreme Court clarifies safeguards against misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in service matters (20 March 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds FIR, Rejects Quashing in Land Fraud Case: Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 465, Judges, R.K. Agrawal, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3

Supreme Court Upholds FIR, Rejects Quashing in Land Fraud Case: Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2018) Date of the Judgment: January 5, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 12 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Can a High Court quash an entire FIR after partially quashing it? The Supreme Court of India addressed

Supreme Court Upholds FIR, Rejects Quashing in Land Fraud Case: Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere with Magistrate’s Order in Atrocities Case: Leena Vivek Masal vs. State of Maharashtra (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Judges, R.K. Agrawal, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Interim Orders

Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere with Magistrate’s Order in Atrocities Case: Leena Vivek Masal vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with an interim order of a Magistrate issuing process in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case

Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere with Magistrate’s Order in Atrocities Case: Leena Vivek Masal vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Conviction in Rape Case, Sets Aside SC/ST Act Conviction: Asharfi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (8 December 2017)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376(2)(g), Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 450, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(2)(v)

Date of the Judgment: 8 December 2017 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J. and R. Banumathi, J. Can a conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 be upheld if the prosecution fails to prove that the crime was committed specifically because the victim belonged to a

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Conviction in Rape Case, Sets Aside SC/ST Act Conviction: Asharfi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (8 December 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Chargesheet Based on National Commission for Scheduled Castes’ Direction: Ishwar Pratap Singh vs State of UP (28 November 2017)

/ Amitava Roy, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 506, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Offences Against Human Body, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(1)(x)

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2017 Citation: Ishwar Pratap Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 2039 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 6835 of 2015) Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and Amitava Roy, J. Can a National Commission dictate the course of a police investigation?

Supreme Court Quashes Chargesheet Based on National Commission for Scheduled Castes’ Direction: Ishwar Pratap Singh vs State of UP (28 November 2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top