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

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 be arrested based on a mere allegation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, expressing concerns about the potential misuse of the Act. The court clarified the circumstances under which anticipatory bail can be granted and laid down procedural safeguards to protect innocent individuals from false implications. This judgment is significant for balancing the protection of vulnerable communities with the rights of all citizens. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, with Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel authoring the opinion.

Table of Contents

Case Background

The case arose from a complaint filed against Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, the Director of Technical Education in Maharashtra, by a department employee, Bhaskar Karbhari Gaidwad. Gaidwad, a member of a Scheduled Caste, had previously filed a complaint against his seniors, Dr. Satish Bhise and Dr. Kishor Burade, for making adverse remarks in his annual confidential report. When Dr. Mahajan, in his official capacity, refused sanction to prosecute Bhise and Burade under the Atrocities Act, Gaidwad filed a fresh complaint against Dr. Mahajan himself, alleging offences under the Atrocities Act and the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay declined to quash the complaint, leading Dr. Mahajan to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Date	Event
4th January 2006	Gaidwad lodges FIR against Dr. Bhise and Dr. Burade under the Atrocities Act for adverse remarks in his annual confidential report.
21st December 2010	Investigating Officer applies for sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against Dr. Bhise and Dr. Burade to the Director of Technical Education.
20th January 2011	Dr. Mahajan, the Director of Technical Education, refuses sanction to prosecute Dr. Bhise and Dr. Burade.
28th March 2016	Gaidwad lodges FIR against Dr. Mahajan for offences under the Atrocities Act and the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5th May 2017	The High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejects Dr. Mahajan’s petition to quash the proceedings.
20th November 2017	The Supreme Court issues notice and stays further proceedings.
20th March 2018	The Supreme Court delivers its judgment.

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejected Dr. Mahajan’s petition to quash the proceedings, observing that the penal provisions of the Atrocities Act could not be faulted merely because of the possibility of abuse. The High Court stated that inherent power to quash could not be exercised as it may send a wrong signal to the downtrodden and backward sections of the society.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

Sections 3(1)(ix), 3(2)(vi), and 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: These sections define offences related to atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
- Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, penalizes giving false or frivolous information to a public servant, causing them to use their lawful power to the detriment of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe.
- Section 3(2)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, addresses the act of causing evidence to disappear with the intention of shielding an offender from legal consequences.
- Section 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pertains to public servants committing offences under this section.
Sections 182, 192, 193, 203, and 219 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These sections pertain to offences such as giving false information, fabricating false evidence, and public servants making corrupt reports.
- Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, penalizes providing false information to a public servant with the intent to cause harm.
- Section 192 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with fabricating false evidence.
- Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, outlines punishments for giving false evidence.
- Section 203 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, addresses giving false information about an offence.
- Section 219 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerns public servants making corrupt reports in judicial proceedings.
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section provides for anticipatory bail.
Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: This section excludes the application of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in cases involving offences under the Atrocities Act.

The Court also considered the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 21, which guarantee equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty, respectively.

Arguments

The learned amicus curiae argued that no offence was made out against the appellant under the Atrocities Act or the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The denial of sanction for prosecution was an administrative order and not false information. The amicus also argued that the FIR was lodged five years after the order was passed, and in the absence of any allegation of mala fides, the proceedings should be quashed. The amicus further submitted that the power of arrest should be exercised only after complying with the safeguards intended under Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Counsel for the intervenor, Ms. Manisha T. Karia, submitted that there was no safeguard against false implication, undue harassment, and uncalled-for arrest. She argued that a preliminary inquiry must be held before arrest. Counsel for the intervenor also submitted that the Atrocities Act is prone to misuse due to monetary incentives available for lodging a case under Rule 12(4) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995.

The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) submitted that there was no occasion to go into the issue of the validity of the Atrocities Act. He further submitted that decisions of this Court permit the grant of anticipatory bail if no prima facie case is made out.

Main Submission	Sub-Submissions	Party
No offence made out under Atrocities Act or IPC	Denial of sanction is an administrative order, not false information. No evidence of causing disappearance of evidence. No intention to deceive or fabricate evidence. No corrupt report was made.	Amicus Curiae
FIR was lodged after five years, order was bonafide	FIR was lodged after five years of the order passed by the appellant. No allegation of malafides. Even if the order was erroneous proceedings against him are not called for.	Amicus Curiae
Safeguards against arbitrary arrest needed	Preliminary enquiry must be made mandatory before arrest. Reasons should be recorded that information was credible and arrest was necessary. Approval of disciplinary authority (for public servant) or Superintendent of Police (for others) should be obtained. Magistrate must pass a speaking order as to correctness of reasons for arrest.	Intervenor
Section 18 of the Atrocities Act is unconstitutional	Exclusion of anticipatory bail is discriminatory and violates Article 14. Exclusion of court’s jurisdiction has no nexus with the object of the Atrocities Act. Violates the principle of fair, just, and reasonable procedure under Article 21.	Amicus Curiae
No need to revisit validity of Atrocities Act	Decisions of this Court permit grant of anticipatory bail if no prima facie case is made out. Government has issued advisories and amended the Atrocities Act.	Additional Solicitor General (ASG)

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

Whether any unilateral allegation of mala fide can be a ground to prosecute officers who dealt with the matter in an official capacity?
If such an allegation is falsely made, what protection is available against such abuse?
Whether there can be procedural safeguards so that provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not abused for extraneous considerations?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue	Court’s Decision
Whether any unilateral allegation of mala fide can be a ground to prosecute officers who dealt with the matter in an official capacity?	The Court held that a unilateral allegation of mala fide cannot be a ground to prosecute officers who dealt with the matter in an official capacity.
If such an allegation is falsely made, what protection is available against such abuse?	The Court specified that exclusion of anticipatory bail does not apply where allegations are prima facie motivated and false, and laid down procedural safeguards to protect against such abuse.
Whether there can be procedural safeguards so that provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not abused for extraneous considerations?	The Court directed that a preliminary inquiry may be conducted by the DSP concerned to find out whether the allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act and that the allegations are not frivolous or motivated. It also directed that 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.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authority	Court	How Considered	Legal Point
Joti Prasad v. State of Haryana, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 497	Supreme Court of India	Referred	The expression ‘reason to believe’ in Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not at par with suspicion.
Badan Singh @ Baddo v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2002 CriLJ 1392	High Court of Allahabad	Referred	The expression ‘reason to believe’ in Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not at par with suspicion.
Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal, (2005) 4 SCC 303	Supreme Court of India	Referred	The expression ‘reason to believe’ in Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not at par with suspicion.
Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, (2015) 11 SCC 628	Supreme Court of India	Referred	The expression ‘reason to believe’ in Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not at par with suspicion.
Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Ors., (1981) 3 SCC 143	Supreme Court of India	Referred	The expression ‘reason to believe’ in Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not at par with suspicion.
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Guidelines for arrest and the need to avoid mechanical arrests.
M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 2 SCC 649	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Guidelines for arrest and the need to avoid mechanical arrests.
D. Venkatasubramaniam v. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari, (2009) 10 SCC 488	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Guidelines for arrest and the need to avoid mechanical arrests.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Guidelines for arrest and the need to avoid mechanical arrests.
Rini Johar & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors., (2016) 11 SCC 703	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Guidelines for arrest and the need to avoid mechanical arrests.
State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna Balothia, (1995) 3 SCC 221	Supreme Court of India	Clarified	Validity of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act; exclusion of anticipatory bail.
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Principles for grant of anticipatory bail.
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India and Anr., (2017) 13 Scale 609, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1355	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Unconstitutionality of fetters on bail.
Jones v. State, 2004 SCC OnLine Mad 922: 2004 CriLJ2755	High Court of Judicature at Madras	Referred	Misuse of the Atrocities Act.
Dr. N.T. Desai v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 2 GLR 942	High Court of Gujarat	Approved	Misuse of the Atrocities Act and the need for judicial scrutiny before arrest.
Dhiren Prafulbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2016 CriLJ 2217	High Court of Gujarat	Referred	Misuse of the Atrocities Act.
Pankaj D Suthar v. State of Gujarat, (1992)1 GLR 405	High Court of Gujarat	Approved	Misuse of the Atrocities Act and the need for judicial scrutiny before arrest.
Sharad v. State of Maharashtra, 2015(4) BomCR(Crl) 545	High Court of Judicature at Bombay	Referred	Misuse of the Atrocities Act.
State of Jharkhand and Anr. v. Govind Singh, (2005)10 SCC 437	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Court cannot lay down guidelines in the nature of legislation.
Rohitash Kumar and Ors v. Om Prakash Sharma and Ors., (2013)11 SCC 451	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Court cannot lay down guidelines in the nature of legislation.
Manju Devi v. Onkarjit Singh Ahluwalia, (2017) 13 SCC 439	Supreme Court of India	Clarified	Validity of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act; exclusion of anticipatory bail.
Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 795	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Permits grant of anticipatory bail if no prima facie case is made out.
Shakuntla Devi v. Baljinder Singh, (2014) 15 SCC 521	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Permits grant of anticipatory bail if no prima facie case is made out.
Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 754	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Role of the judiciary in law-making.
Rajesh Kumar v. State, (2011) 13 SCC 706	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Interpretation of Article 21 after Maneka Gandhi.
Madhuri Patil v. Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Directions regarding functioning of caste scrutiny committees.
State of Punjab v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal, (2016) 1 SCC 1	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Directions to regulate appointment of law officers.
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Directions to regulate powers of this Court and High Courts in designating Senior Advocates.
R.D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P., (2007) 15 SCC 337	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Guidelines for the welfare of a child accompanying his/her mother in imprisonment.
Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. UOI, (2011) 5 SCC 1	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Directions for checking trafficking of women and children.
Union for Civil Liberties v. UOI, (2010) 5 SCC 318	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Directions for night shelters for the homeless.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. UOI, (2004) 12 SCC 104 and (2010) 15 SCC 57	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Directions to check malnutrition in children.
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of W.B., (1996) 4 SCC 37	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Directions to provide medical assistance by Government-run hospitals.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn., (1978) 4 SCC 494	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Directions for protection of human rights of prisoners.
Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secy. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Directions for speedy trial of under trials.
D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Guidelines to check abuse of arrest and drastic police power.
Subramanian Swamy v. UOI, (2016) 7 SCC 221	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Need for harmony in competing claims of different interests.
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Parameters for exercise of discretion of anticipatory bail.
Indra Sawhney and Ors v. Union of India and Ors., 1992 Supp(3) SCC 217	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Anr. Etc. v. Union of India and Anr., (2003)4 SCC 399	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Failures in the working of the Constitution.
Hema Mishra v. State of U.P., (2014) 4 SCC 453	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Constitutional Court is not debarred from exercising its jurisdiction to grant relief even if there is a statutory bar against grant of anticipatory bail.
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 437	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Interim bail can be granted even if there is no provision for anticipatory bail.
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Jurisdiction under Article 226 is not barred even if there is no provision for anticipatory bail.
Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955 : 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Interpretation of a statute in the context of its object.
Pravinchandra N Solanki and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, (2012)1 GLR 499	High Court of Gujarat	Overruled	Contra view on anticipatory bail under the Atrocities Act.
State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 346	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Concept of “Due process” and principles of 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Presumption of innocence is a human right.
Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Mandatory registration of FIRs and exceptions to the rule.
State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, AIR 1964 SC 221 = 1964(3) SCR 221	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Police officer can make preliminary inquiries before registering an offence.
P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Need for preliminary inquiry before proceeding against public servants.
Dadu alias Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra, (2000)8SCC 437	Supreme Court of India	Referred	Legislature cannot take away judicial powers by statutory prohibition.

Judgment

Submission	Court’s Treatment
No offence made out under Atrocities Act or IPC	The Court agreed that no offence was made out against the appellant.
FIR was lodged after five years, order was bonafide	The Court considered this factor and agreed that the proceedings against the appellant were an abuse of the process of court.
Safeguards against arbitrary arrest needed	The Court laid down procedural safeguards to protect against arbitrary arrests, including preliminary inquiry and prior approval for arrest.
Section 18 of the Atrocities Act is unconstitutional	The Court clarified that the exclusion of anticipatory bail applies only when a prima facie case is made out and not when the case is patently false or mala fide.
No need to revisit validity of Atrocities Act	The Court clarified that there is no absolute bar to grant anticipatory bail if no prima facie case is made out.

The Supreme Court made the following observations regarding the authorities:

The Court clarified that the judgments in State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna Balothia [CITATION] and Manju Devi v. Onkarjit Singh Ahluwalia [CITATION] do not mean that anticipatory bail cannot be granted if no prima facie case is made out.
The Court approved the view taken by the High Court of Gujarat in Pankaj D Suthar v. State of Gujarat [CITATION] and Dr. N.T. Desai v. State of Gujarat [CITATION], which held that anticipatory bail can be granted if the allegations are doubtful and there is a possibility of misuse of the Atrocities Act.
The Court overruled the contra view of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Pravinchandra N Solanki and Ors. v. State of Gujarat [CITATION].

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to balance the protection of vulnerable communities with the rights of all citizens. The Court expressed concerns about the potential misuse of the Atrocities Act and the need to safeguard innocent individuals from false implications and unnecessary arrests. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding constitutional values of fraternity and integration of society. The court also observed that the Atrocities Act should not be used to perpetuate casteism, and that the law should protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

Sentiment	Percentage
Protection of innocent citizens from false implication	35%
Need to balance rights of vulnerable communities with rights of all citizens	30%
Concerns about misuse of the Atrocities Act	20%
Upholding constitutional values of fraternity and integration of society	15%

Ratio	Percentage
Fact	40%
Law	60%

Allegation under Atrocities Act

↓

Preliminary Inquiry by DSP

↓

Is Allegation Frivolous/Motivated?

↓

If Yes: No Arrest

↓

If No: Approval for Arrest

↓

Public Servant: Appointing Authority

Non-Public Servant: S.S.P

↓

Arrest if Approved

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that a unilateral allegation of mala fide cannot be a ground to prosecute officers who dealt with the matter in an official capacity. The Court also laid down procedural safeguards to protect against arbitrary arrests, including the need for a preliminary inquiry by the DSP to ascertain whether the allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act and that the allegations are not frivolous or motivated. The Court further held that 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.

The Court clarified that the exclusion of anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act does not apply when the allegations are prima facie motivated and false. The Court emphasized that the Atrocities Act should not be misused for extraneous considerations and that procedural safeguards are necessary to protect innocent individuals from false implications.

Obiter Dicta

The Supreme Court made several observations that, while not directly part of the ratio decidendi, are important for understanding the Court’s perspective on the matter. These include:

The Court emphasized the importance of upholding constitutional values of fraternity and integration of society.
The Court observed that the Atrocities Act should not be used to perpetuate casteism, and that the law should protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
The Court noted the need for a balance between protecting vulnerable communities and safeguarding the rights of all citizens.
The Court expressed concern about the potential misuse of the Atrocities Act and the need to protect innocent individuals from false implications and unnecessary arrests.
The Court observed that the expression ‘reason to believe’ in Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not at par with suspicion.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. is a significant ruling that clarifies the safeguards against misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court’s decision provides much-needed procedural safeguards to protect innocent individuals from false implications and arbitrary arrests. The judgment emphasizes the importance of balancing the protection of vulnerable communities with the rights of all citizens. The Court’s observations regarding the need to uphold constitutional values of fraternity and integration of society are also noteworthy. The judgment has been influential in subsequent cases and has led to amendments in the Atrocities Act to address the concerns raised by the Court.

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