CRUX:
DSSSB v. DR Satya Prakash Gautam & AnrW.P.(Crl.) No. 667/2021 &Crl.M.A. No. 4883/2021- In the present case, the court dismissed the DSSSB's petition appealing a trial court judgement from February 17 that directed the filing of a FIR against the offenders for violations of the SC/ST Act, based on a complaint by Adv. Satya Prakash Gautam.
JUDGMENT SUMMARY:
DSSSB v. DR Satya Prakash Gautam &Anr
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
14/06/2021
JUDGE:
Hon’ble Ms. Justice Anu Malhotra
PARTIES:
DSSSB(Petitioner)
DR Satya Prakash Gautam &Anr(Respondent)
SUMMARY
In the present case, the court dismissed the DSSSB's petition appealing a trial court judgement from February 17 that directed the filing of a FIR against the offenders for violations of the SC/ST Act, based on a complaint by Adv. Satya Prakash Gautam.
Background Facts
The petitioner, the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereafter referred to as " DSSSB"), seeks to have the learned judge's common order of 17.2.2021 set aside in the current petition.Special Court SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Additional Sessions Judge-02,Shahdara, Karkardooma, Case No. 16/2019 is a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The applications of the complainant, i.e., the respondent No. 1 arrayed to the present petition, Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973, were allowed, and a FIR was directed to be registered against the offenders for offences committed under the provisions of the Atrocities Act (an apparent reference to the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention and Punishment of Atrocities) Act 1989, and an investigation was ordered to be conducted by the Officer empowered under the Act, with a monthly report to be filed before the Court in light of the Guidelines of the Honble Supreme Court's verdict in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of UP.
The trial Court record has since been obtained via a letter dated 17.4.2021 from the Trial Court, in accordance with an order dated 6.4.2021 in which it was deemed necessary that the trial Court record be requisitioned.
Under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, read with Section 14 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, a complaint was filed by the complainant. i.e., the respondent herein, before the Special Court for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the petitioner. Under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, read with Section 14 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, read with Rule 5 of the SC/ST (POA) Rules 1995, the DSSSB, through its Chairman and other unknown persons, submitted to the effect that the complainant, being a member of the Scheduled Caste community, had drawn the attention of the SHO, Police Station Anand V, in his written complaint dated 13.10.2018.
The complaint also alleged that when the complainant read the newspaper in his room, he was stunned by what he read and obtained a copy of the question paper from social media, where he noticed the unacceptable question that had caused a stir in the community. According to the plaintiff, he was unable to convey his injuries in language that would be humiliating to the entire community.
The complainant, respondent No. 1 in the current petition, claimed that the DSSSB caused irreparable harm to the entire Scheduled Caste community, particularly the females of the Chamar community, by asking such an objectionable question in order to denigrate the prestige and honour of Scheduled Caste females.
The complainant also claimed that the accused persons, such as the Chairman of the DSSSB and the concerned Examination Committee of the DSSSB, who chose a derogatory and insulting question, had acted against the society's peace and tranquilly and wanted to create an atmosphere of social disharmony, and that officer like him had been promoting enmity between diaspora communities.
The petitioner's remarks dated 13.4.2021, which sought to make submissions through the petition, were renewed.The petitioner reiterated that it had placed the particulars of both paper setters on record in two sealed envelopes, which was recorded in the order dated 25.11.2020 and the matter was adjourned to 12.2.2021, and the learned Trial Court had referred to the report of the Investigating Officer submitted in September 2019 alleging the attempt being made by the petitioner in its order dated 17.2.2021.
The petitioner reiterates that, because the officers of the DSSSB are public servants protected from prosecution under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the Court is required to seek prior approval from the competent authority if a public servant is accused of an offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, and that all offence must be committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties.
The petitioner has filed a copy of the learned Trial Court's order dated 23.10.2020, Ct.16/2019 & 13/2018, in which it was noted that two sealed envelopes containing the particulars of both paper setters had been filed on record.
Court’s Observation & Order
The Delhi High Court today upheld a trial court order directing the registration of a FIR against unknown offenders under the Scheduled Castes Act, holding that caste-based questions included in the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board's (DSSSB) primary teacher recruitment exams were prima facie intentionally insulting or intimidating with a view to insult members of specific castes.
The questions that the Delhi High Court deemed to be prima facie offensive were included in question papers for the DSSSB's Primary Teachers' Recruitment Exams, which were held on October 13, 2018 and August 18, 2019.
The court, on the other hand, stated that whether the DSSSB was in fact aware of the contents of the question papers set or not is a matter that can only be determined through investigation, and that the question of invoking S.197 of the CrPC, 1973, would be considered only after the stage of investigation into who was involved in the commission of the offence is completed.
The court also noted that the DSSSB's argument that it "leaves the questions to the wisdom of the paper setters for such important exams...and leaves the question set entirely to the domain and expertise of the paper setters, prima facie does not appeal to a prudent person," and that "if a fact, the same can only be determined on investigation."
"The factum that both these castes (that were mentioned in the question papers) fall within the domain of the Scheduled Castes as in terms of the Constitution Scheduled Castes Order 1950 per se does not permit use of the same in question papers by the DSSSB in terms of the spirit of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's verdicts," Justice Anu Malhotra wrote in her verdict.
As a result, the court dismissed the DSSSB's petition appealing a trial court judgement from February 17 that directed the filing of a FIR against the offenders for violations of the SC/ST Act, based on a complaint by Adv. Satya Prakash Gautam.
The court also rejected the DSSSB's argument that the complainant does not fall within the scope of S.2(ec) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, stating that because he fits the definition of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, "it cannot be said that there was no mental or emotional harm caused to him by reading the newspaper reports in relation to the question papers, set with prima facie casteist remarks, which were put forth in the public domain by an instrumentality of the State."
Conclusion
The Court in the present case, observed that the factum that both these castes that were mentioned in the question papers fall within the domain of the Scheduled Castes as in terms of the Constitution Scheduled Castes Order 1950 per se does not permit use of the same in question papers by the DSSSB in terms of the spirit. As a result, the court dismissed the DSSSB's petition appealing a trial court judgement from February 17 that directed the filing of a FIR against the offenders for violations of the SC/ST Act, based on a complaint by Adv. Satya Prakash Gautam.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
