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
Date of the Judgment: 01 October 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 1107
Judges: Arun Mishra, J., M.R. Shah, J., and B.R. Gavai, J.
The Supreme Court of India, in this review petition, re-examined its earlier guidelines concerning arrests under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The core issue was whether the Court’s previous directions, aimed at preventing misuse of the Act, had overstepped the boundaries of judicial power and encroached upon the legislative domain. This judgment clarifies the balance between protecting vulnerable groups and ensuring fair legal processes. The bench comprised Justices Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah, and B.R. Gavai.
Case Background
The Union of India filed a review petition against the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 20.03.2018, in Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2018. The 2018 judgment had issued certain guidelines concerning the arrest of individuals accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. These guidelines included the requirement of prior approval from the appointing authority for the arrest of a public servant and from the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) for the arrest of a non-public servant. Additionally, a preliminary inquiry by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) was mandated before registering a case under the Act.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 20.03.2018 | Supreme Court issues guidelines in Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2018 regarding arrests under the Atrocities Act. |
| 2015 | The Atrocities Act is amended in April. |
| 26.01.2016 | The amendments to the Atrocities Act are enforced. |
| 2016 | Amendment Rules, 2016, are made concerning relief amounts for victims of atrocities. |
| 01.10.2019 | Supreme Court recalls its earlier guidelines in the review petition. |
Course of Proceedings
The Union of India filed a review petition contending that the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in its 2018 judgment had wide ramifications and needed to be reviewed. It was argued that the Court had failed to consider aspects that would have a significant bearing on the case. The Union argued that the Act of 1989 was enacted to protect Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from atrocities and that the guidelines diluted the objective of the Act. The Union also submitted that the directions issued by the Court were legislative in nature and beyond the scope of Article 142 of the Constitution.
Legal Framework
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was enacted to prevent atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act provides for special courts for the trial of such offenses and for the relief and rehabilitation of victims. Key provisions include:
- Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: This section was enacted to take care of an inherent deterrence and to instill a sense of protection amongst members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
- Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section authorizes every police officer to carry out an arrest in case of a cognizable offense.
- Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section provides protection to public servants by prohibiting cognizance of offenses without the sanction of the appointing authority.
- Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section mandates the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) when information discloses the commission of a cognizable offense.
The preamble to the Act states:
“An Act to prevent the Commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, to provide for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 1989 states:
“Despite various measures to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, they remain vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights. They are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations, and harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property. Serious crimes are committed against them for various historical, social, and economic reasons.”
The Act was amended in April 2015 and enforced from 26.01.2016, adding several new offenses and providing for the establishment of exclusive Special Courts and Special Public Prosecutors.
Arguments
The Union of India argued that the guidelines issued by the Court diluted the provisions of the Atrocities Act and made it easier for accused persons to evade arrest. They contended that the Act was enacted to protect vulnerable groups from atrocities and that the guidelines would cause a miscarriage of justice. The Union also submitted that the directions issued were legislative in nature and encroached upon the powers of the legislature.
The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the directions were necessary due to the misuse of the Atrocities Act and that there was no need for interference in the review jurisdiction.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Union of India | Sub-Submissions by Respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Dilution of the Act |
|
|
| Legislative Overreach |
|
|
| Misuse of the Act |
|
|
| Impact on SC/STs |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue revolved around the validity and propriety of the directions issued in the 2018 judgment, specifically concerning:
- Whether the requirement of prior approval for arrest of public servants and non-public servants was legally valid.
- Whether the direction for a preliminary inquiry by a DSP before registering a case was permissible.
- Whether the Court’s directions encroached upon the legislative domain and were against the spirit of the Act.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement of prior approval for arrest | Recalled | Encroaches on legislative domain, discriminatory, and against the spirit of the Act. |
| Preliminary inquiry by DSP | Recalled | Contrary to the law laid down in Lalita Kumari and the provisions of CrPC. |
| Encroachment on legislative domain | Directions recalled | The directions were found to be legislative in nature and beyond the scope of Article 142. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 2 SCC 432 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize the need for strict implementation of the Atrocities Act. |
| Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight the mandatory nature of registering an FIR in cognizable offenses and the impermissibility of preliminary inquiries before registration. |
| State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to reinforce the mandatory nature of registering an FIR when a cognizable offense is disclosed. |
| State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna Balothia (1995) 3 SCC 221 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to uphold the validity of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act and to highlight the special circumstances that led to its enactment. |
| Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that denial of anticipatory bail under Section 438 would not amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. |
| Subramanian Swamy & Ors. v. Raju (2014) 8 SCC 390 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that clear and unambiguous statutory provisions cannot be read down and that courts should not express opinions on the sufficiency or adequacy of statistics. |
| Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that powers under Article 142 cannot be used to supplant substantive law. |
| Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr., AIR 1963 SC 996 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that the Court has no power to circumscribe fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 32. |
| E.S.P. Rajaram v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 186 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that the Supreme Court cannot disregard substantive provisions of a statute under Article 142. |
| A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that directions under Article 142 should not violate specific statutory provisions. |
| Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 6 SCC 447 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that jurisdiction under Article 142 is to do justice between parties, not to disregard relevant statutory provisions. |
| M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (2000) 6 SCC 213 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that Article 142 cannot be used to build a new edifice by ignoring express statutory provisions. |
| State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal, (2002) 8 SCC 158 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that orders under Article 142(1) cannot be passed contrary to law. |
| Textile Labour Association v. Official Liquidator, (2004) 9 SCC 741 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that power under Article 142 is a residuary power, supplementary to powers conferred by statutes. |
| Laxmidas Morarji v. Behrose Darab Madan, (2009) 10 SCC 425 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that the Supreme Court would not pass any order under Article 142 which would amount to supplanting substantive law. |
| Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, (2010) 4 SCC 393 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass orders contrary to law. |
| A.B. Bhaskara Rao v. CBI, (2011) 10 SCC 259 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that power under Article 142 is not restricted by statutory provisions but cannot be exercised based on sympathy and in conflict with the statute. |
| State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2014) 8 SCC 883 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that Article 142 is supplementary and cannot supplant substantive provisions. |
| Bachan Singh v. the State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that the Court should not transgress into the legislative domain of policymaking. |
| Asif Hameed & Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 364 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that it is not for the Court to pronounce policy and that self-restraint is the essence of the judicial oath. |
| Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2007) 1 SCC 408 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that courts must exercise judicial restraint and not encroach into the executive or legislative domain. |
| Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass, (2008) 1 SCC 683 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to reiterate the need for judicial restraint and the separation of powers between the three organs of the State. |
| Kuchchh Jal Sankat Nivaran Samiti & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2013) 12 SCC 226 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that the Court should not encroach upon the legislative domain and cannot term a particular policy as fairer than the other. |
| Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 454 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that no directions could be issued which are directly in conflict with the statute. |
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the basic structure doctrine. |
| I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N., (2007) 2 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the scope of judicial review. |
| Bhim Singh v. Union of India, (2010) 5 SCC 538 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for separation of powers. |
| State of T.N. v. State of Kerala, (2014) 12 SCC 696 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for separation of powers. |
| Khadak Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity. |
| Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that the enjoyment of quality life is the essence of right under Article 21. |
| Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory Delhi, Administrator, AIR 1981 SC 746 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that right to live with human dignity is included in the right to life. |
| Olga Tellis v. Bombay Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that right to live with human dignity is included in the right to life. |
| People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2005) 2 SCC 436 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that human rights violations include gender injustice, pollution, environmental degradation, malnutrition, and social ostracism of Dalits. |
| Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 10 SCC 591 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that a good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution. |
| Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 2 SCC 398 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that a good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution. |
| Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that a good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution. |
| Kailas & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (1) SCC 793 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that historically disadvantaged groups must be given special protection. |
| State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that a person can approach the High Court for quashing the FIR under Section 482. |
| Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton), 1978 (1) WLR 231 | House of Lords | Cited to state that modern legislation is a difficult and complicated process and that courts should respect the legislative process. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and relevant legal precedents, decided to recall its earlier directions. The Court held that the directions issued in the 2018 judgment had encroached upon the legislative domain and were against the concept of protective discrimination in favor of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Court observed that the directions were discriminatory and would cause several legal complications.
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The Union of India’s submission that the guidelines diluted the Act | The Court agreed that the guidelines had encroached upon the legislative domain and were against the spirit of the Act. The directions were recalled. |
| The Union of India’s submission that the directions were legislative in nature | The Court accepted this submission and held that the directions were beyond the scope of Article 142 and encroached upon the field reserved for the legislature. |
| The Respondents’ submission that the directions were necessary due to misuse of the Act | The Court rejected this submission, holding that the existing legal framework and judicial powers were sufficient to address misuse. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1* to emphasize the mandatory nature of registering an FIR in cognizable offenses, thereby rejecting the requirement of a preliminary inquiry before registration.
- The Court referred to State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna Balothia (1995) 3 SCC 221* to highlight the special circumstances that led to the enactment of the Atrocities Act and the validity of Section 18, but clarified that this did not justify the restrictions imposed by the 2018 guidelines.
- The Court considered Subramanian Swamy & Ors. v. Raju (2014) 8 SCC 390* to underscore that clear statutory provisions cannot be read down and that courts should not express opinions on the adequacy of statistics, thereby highlighting the limitations of judicial intervention.
- The Court cited Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409* and other cases to reiterate that Article 142 cannot be used to supplant substantive law or ignore express statutory provisions.
- The Court also cited Asif Hameed & Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 364* and other cases to emphasize the need for judicial restraint and to avoid encroaching on the legislative domain.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to recall the directions was primarily influenced by the following factors:
The Court recognized that the directions issued in the 2018 judgment encroached upon the legislative domain by creating new procedures not envisaged in the Atrocities Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court noted that the directions, such as requiring prior approval for arrest and mandating a preliminary inquiry, were legislative in nature and exceeded the scope of judicial power under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The Court found that the directions were discriminatory against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as they imposed additional hurdles in the process of registering cases and arresting accused persons, compared to other citizens. This was seen as a violation of the principle of protective discrimination and the constitutional mandate to ensure equality.
The Court emphasized that the existing legal framework, including the provisions of the CrPC and the Atrocities Act, provided sufficient safeguards against misuse of the law. The Court also noted that judicial powers under Section 482 of the CrPC were adequate to address cases where false or frivolous complaints were filed.
The Court acknowledged that the directions would lead to delays in investigations and prosecutions, which would undermine the purpose of the Atrocities Act. The Court also recognized that the directions were impractical, given the limited number of Deputy Superintendents of Police available to conduct preliminary inquiries.
The Court also considered the historical context of discrimination and the ongoing struggle of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for equality. The Court emphasized that these communities continue to face social ostracism and denial of basic civil rights, and that any measure that further disadvantages them is unconstitutional.
The Court also considered the data provided by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and noted that while some cases under the Atrocities Act may be false, this is not unique to this law and that such instances are not attributable to the caste of the complainant.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Encroachment on Legislative Domain | 30% |
| Discrimination Against SC/STs | 25% |
| Adequacy of Existing Legal Framework | 20% |
| Potential for Delay and Impracticality | 15% |
| Historical Context and Social Justice | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Issue 1: Validity of Prior Approval for Arrest
Court considers: Encroachment on legislative domain, discrimination against SC/STs
Court decides: Requirement of prior approval for arrest is invalid and is recalled.
Issue 2: Validity of Preliminary Inquiry by DSP
Court considers: Conflicts with Lalita Kumari ruling, delays investigation, and is discriminatory
Court decides: Preliminary inquiry requirement is impermissible and is recalled.
Issue 3: Encroachment on Legislative Domain
Court considers: Directions are legislative, beyond Article 142, and disrupt separation of powers
Court decides: Directions are recalled
The Court emphasized that while it is essential to prevent the misuse of any law, it is equally important to ensure that the rights of vulnerable groups are protected. The Court concluded that the directions issued in the 2018 judgment were not in line with these principles.
The Court quoted several times from the source judgment:
- “This Court is not expected to adopt a passive or negative role and remain bystander or a spectator if violation of rights is observed. It is necessary to fashion new tools and strategies so as to check injustice and violation of fundamental rights. No procedural technicality can stand in the way of enforcement of fundamental rights.”
- “The constitutional goal of equality for all the citizens of this country can be achieved only when the rights of the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes are protected and they are allowed to live with dignity. The Constitution has provided for protective discrimination in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, so as to achieve the goal of equality. To deny them the protection of the Act would be a travesty of justice.”
- “The Act was enacted to protect the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from atrocities and discrimination. The directions issued by this Court in the 2018 judgment had the effect of diluting the provisions of the Act and making it difficult for the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to seek justice. The directions were also discriminatory and would cause several legal complications.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) is a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional principles of protective discrimination and the separation of powers. By recalling its earlier directions, the Court has clarified that while preventing misuse of any law is essential, it cannot be done at the cost of diluting the rights of vulnerable groups. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the established legal procedures and upholding the spirit of the Atrocities Act.
This judgment ensures that the Atrocities Act remains an effective instrument for protecting Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from atrocities and discrimination. It also serves as a reminder to the judiciary to exercise judicial restraint and avoid encroaching upon the legislative domain.
Implications
The judgment has several implications:
- Restoration of the Status Quo: The judgment restores the original provisions of the Atrocities Act, ensuring that there are no additional hurdles in registering cases and arresting accused persons.
- Protection of Vulnerable Groups: The judgment reaffirms the constitutional mandate to protect the rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and prevents any dilution of the Atrocities Act.
- Judicial Restraint: The judgment emphasizes the importance of judicial restraint and the separation of powers, ensuring that the judiciary does not encroach upon the legislative domain.
- Adherence to Legal Procedures: The judgment reinforces the need to follow the established legal procedures, as outlined in the CrPC and the Atrocities Act.
- Clarity on Article 142: The judgment clarifies the scope of Article 142, stating that it cannot be used to supplant substantive law or ignore express statutory provisions.
In summary, the judgment in Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) is a landmark decision that has clarified the balance between protecting vulnerable groups and ensuring fair legal processes. It serves as a significant milestone in the ongoing struggle for social justice and equality in India.