Prithvi Raj v. Union of India (2020)
(Constitutional validity of section 18A of the SC & ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act upheld)
(section 18A of the SC & ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act)
- JUDGEMENT SUMMARY: Prathvi Raj v. Union of India
- DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 10th February 2020
- JUDGES: Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, S. Ravindra Bhat
- PARTIES: Prathvi Raj Chauhan ( Petitioner) & Union of India ( Respondent)
SUBJECT
The judgement deals with the challenge of the constitutional validity of the Section 18A of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, introduced by the 2018 Amendment to the Act. This section has been inserted by the Amendment of 2018 to nullify the preliminary inquiry before the registration of FIR, no requirement of approval by the investigating officer before the arrest.
AN OVERVIEW
1. The court in the judgement here examined if the Amendment violates the principle of judicial review, a basic feature of the Constitution. The Amendment directly undid a Supreme Court order.
2. In 2018, Parliament introduced Section 18A to overturn safeguards introduced by the Supreme Court in its Kashinath Mahajan judgment. Section 18A undoes all three of the following safeguards introduced by the judgment:
• Conduct a preliminary inquiry prior to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR)
• Investigation officer must receive further approval prior to effectuating an arrest
• Grant anticipatory bail to any accused, ‘notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court’.
• The safeguards from the Kashinath Mahajan judgment were intended to prevent people from abusing the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. They were a response to the allegedly rising number of false charges being filed using the Act. The safeguards aimed to ensure that people accused under the Prevention of Atrocities Act are not presumed guilty and denied due process.
• On 7 September 2018, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan issued a notice to the Centre to file their response to this petition. On 29 October 2018, the Central Government filed an affidavit stating that the Parliament is competent to bring about the amendment to the Act. The Affidavit further records that high rates on acquittals in cases filed under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be the basis for the assumption that a majority of the cases filed under it are false. On 24 January 2019, the Court clubbed the petitions challenging the 2018 Amendment with the review petitions challenging Kashinath Mahajan. It is unusual for writ petitions to be heard together with review petitions, as review petitions have a much narrower scope.
In this case, the three-judge bench of Supreme Court of India has upheld 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 case. The court held that the directions given in Kashinath Mahajan case had placed an unnecessary burden upon people of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
• 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.
ISSUES
1. Is the absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail for the accused arbitrary and unjust, violating Article 14 of the Constitution?
2. Does the bar on anticipatory bail infringe the personal liberty of an individual who has been booked under the Act without any ground?
3. Does the power of automatic arrest violate 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?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
1. The petitioners here challenged the constitutional validity of Section 18A of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, introduced by the 2018 Amendment to the Act. The Court here, assessed whether Section 18A violates the fundamental rights to equality, life and liberty guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
2. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the safeguards introduced in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. were necessary as the Act was misused a lot. Further contended that the absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail will result in a violation of fundamental right granted under article 21 of Constitution relating to personal liberty of a person.
3. Attorney General KK Venugopal on behalf of Central Government contend that the amendment was made due to a large number of acquittal cases and police failed to implement the act properly and prosecution of accused was also not effective. The petitioner's counsel further argued that the amendment conforms with the aim of the act which states for the protection of the SC/ST section of the society.
4. The 2018 Amendment introduced Section 18A to the PoA Act, which undid the safeguards introduced in Kashinath Mahajan:
5. No preliminary inquiry shall be required to register an FIR against any person accused under the PoA Act
6. The investigating officer requires the approval of neither the appointing authority nor the Superintendent of Police to arrest any person accused under the Act. There is a bar on granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to any person accused under the Act.
7. The hearing by the SC of AG's arguments saw a request being made for the appointment of an amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter. The Bench rejected the request, observing that since there are contesting parties on both sides, there was no need to appoint an amicus curiae. The Court also rejected a request by one of the parties to file written submissions in the review petition, stating that the matter had already been reserved for judgment and it was too late to take any more documents on record.
8. Sr. Adv. Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing for another petitioner highlighted that the amended provision relating to the preliminary inquiry had to be interpreted in light of the decision in Lalita Kumari, which had held that such enquiry may be carried out in certain exceptional cases (refer to paragraphs 106-110 of Lalita Kumari). Justice Mishra agreed to this submission too and mentioned that this too would be clarified in the judgment.
CONCLUSION
The three-judge bench of Supreme Court of India upheld 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 case. The court held that the directions given in Kashinath Mahajan case placed an unnecessary burden upon people of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes. The Court further held that no anticipatory bail to be given for offences under SC/ST Amendment Act. In the concurring opinion, Justice Ravindra Bhat observed that anticipatory bail can only be given in exceptional cases and not in every case. The court had earlier observed that the anticipatory bail can only be granted where there is no prima facie case under the SC/SCT Act.
Justice Ravindra Bhat while delivering judgment also states about equal treatment of all citizens and fostering the idea of fraternity because the concept of fraternity is as important as the personal liberty of a person.
To download the original copy of the judgment, click here
