The Supreme Court recently laid down stringent safeguards, including provision for anticipatory bail and a “preliminary enquiry” before registering a case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
A bench of Justices comprising of A K Goel and U U Lalit, ruled, “To avoid false implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry 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 was further stated by the bench that if the accused is a public servant, he can only be arrested with the permission of the appointing authority. And if the accused is not a public servant, prior permission of the Senior Superintendent of Police of the district will be required. The reason for granting permission for arrest should be recorded in writing and handed to the accused and the concerned court.
The bench was hearing a petition filed by Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, who was Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra, against a Bombay High Court order. The HC had rejected Mahajan’s plea challenging an FIR against him for denying sanction to prosecute an official of the department, who had made adverse remarks in the ACR of an employee.
The bench however had quashed the case stating, “It has been judicially acknowledged that there are instances of abuse of the Act by vested interests against political opponents in panchayat, municipal or other elections, to settle private civil disputes arising out of property, monetary disputes, employment disputes and seniority disputes. It may be noticed that by way of rampant misuse, complaints are largely being filed particularly against public servants/ quasi judicial/ judicial officers with oblique motive for satisfaction of vested interests.”
It further said that “The Legislature never intended to use the Atrocities Act as an instrument to blackmail or to wreak personal vengeance” or “to deter public servants from performing their bona fide duties. This court is not expected to adopt a passive or negative role and remain a 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. Role of this court travels beyond merely dispute settling and directions can certainly be issued which are not directly in conflict with a valid statute.”
Justifying its decision to allow anticipatory bail where there was no prima facie case, the bench said, “Unless exclusion of anticipatory bail is limited to genuine cases. There will be no protection available to innocent citizens. Thus, limiting the exclusion of anticipatory bail in such cases is essential for protection of fundamental right of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
It said that the working of the Act “should not result in perpetuating casteism which can have an adverse impact on integration of the society and the constitutional values,”
It ruled that, “Secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. Irrespective of caste or religion, the Constitution guarantees equality in its preamble as well as other provisions including Articles 14-16. The Constitution envisages a cohesive, unified and casteless society. We are thus of the view that interpretation of the Atrocities Act should promote constitutional values of fraternity and integration of the society. This may require a check on false implication of innocent citizens on caste lines.”
