Janjivan Bureau / New Delhi : Taking note of abuse of stringent provisions of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a set of directions to ensure that innocent persons, particularly public servants, are not unnecessarily harassed.
“In view of acknowledged abuse of law of arrest in cases under the Atrocities Act, arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by the SSP which may be granted in appropriate cases if considered necessary for reasons recorded. Such reasons must be scrutinised by the magistrate for permitting further detention,” a Bench of Justice AK Goel and Justice UU Lalit ordered.
The recorded reasons must be served on the person to be arrested and to the court concerned, the Bench said.
“The legislature never intended to use the Atrocities Act as an instrument to blackmail or to wreak personal vengeance. The Act is also not intended to deter public servants from performing their bona fide duties,” it noted.
“As and when a person arrested is produced before the magistrate, the magistrate must apply his mind to the reasons recorded and further detention should be allowed only if the reasons recorded are found to be valid.
“There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide.
“The said Act cannot be converted into a charter for exploitation or oppression by any unscrupulous person or by police for extraneous reasons against other citizens as has been found on several occasions in decisions referred to above.
“Any harassment of an innocent citizen, irrespective of caste or religion, is against the guarantee of the Constitution. This court must enforce such a guarantee. Law should not result in caste hatred. The preamble to the Constitution, which is the guiding star for interpretation, incorporates the values of liberty, equality and fraternity,” the top court said.
According to National Crime Records Bureau, out of the total number of complaints under the Act investigated by the police in 2015, in almost 15-16 per cent cases, the competent police authorities had filed closure reports. Out of the cases disposed of by the courts in 2015, more than 75 per cent cases have resulted in acquittal/withdrawal or compounding of the cases.
To check false implication of innocent persons, the Bench ordered that before an FIR was registered, preliminary enquiry should be made to ascertain if the case fell within the parameters of the Act and was not frivolous or motivated.
Any violation of these directions will be actionable by way of disciplinary action as well as contempt, the Bench said.
“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 (provisions on right to equality and non-discrimination). The Constitution envisages a cohesive, unified and casteless society,” the Bench said.
The order came on a petition filed by Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, Director of Technical Education, against whom a case under the Act was filed by an SC employee for refusing to grant sanction to prosecute two other employees who had made adverse comments against the complainant about his work in their official capacity. But the Bombay High Court refused to quash the FIR against him.
However, allowing his appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the case terming it “clear abuse of process of court”.
Such unilateral allegations of mala fide cannot be a ground to prosecute officers who dealt with the matter in official capacity, it noted.
“We are thus of the view that interpretation of the Atrocities Act should promote constitutional values of fraternity and integration of the society,” the Bench noted.
“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’,” the Bench said.
