Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, P. Surendran, was arrayed as an accused in Crime No. 937 of 2017 registered at PS Pallikaranai, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 302, and 506 IPC, and subsequently Section 3(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) was added. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner filed an anticipatory bail application (Crl.M.P. No. 5697 of 2018) before the Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu, which was dismissed on 02.01.2019. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Madras High Court seeking anticipatory bail, but the High Court Registry refused to number the petition, raising an office objection that the petition was not maintainable because the offence was under the SC/ST Act, citing Section 18A of the Act which bars the application of Section 438 CrPC. Despite the petitioner's reply, the Registry rejected numbering and dismissed the petition on maintainability grounds. The petitioner then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court on the question of law whether the High Court Registry was wrong in refusing to number the petition and whether such refusal impinged on the judicial function of the High Court. The Supreme Court, after hearing the Attorney General for India, held that the act of numbering a petition is purely administrative, but the question of maintainability requires judicial application of mind and cannot be decided by the Registry. The Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Lakshmichand to distinguish between administrative and judicial functions. The Court directed the Madras High Court Registry to number the petition and place it before an appropriate bench for consideration on merits, clarifying that it had not expressed any views on the nature of the amendment, the standard of judicial review, or the extent of justiciability under Section 18A of the SC/ST Act, which were left open for the appropriate bench to consider. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Maintainability - Section 438 CrPC, Section 18A SC/ST Act - Registry refused to number anticipatory bail petition citing Section 18A bar - Supreme Court held that numbering is administrative, but maintainability requires judicial application of mind - Registry cannot exercise judicial power - Direction to number and place before appropriate bench (Paras 1-10). B) Constitutional Law - Separation of Powers - Judicial Function - Registry's administrative role cannot extend to deciding maintainability - Distinction between administrative and judicial functions - Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. criteria applied - Held that Registry's refusal impinges on judicial function (Paras 9-10). C) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 18A - Amendment Act 2018 - Bar on anticipatory bail - Interpretation - Supreme Court left open the question of justiciability under Section 18A for appropriate bench - No expression of opinion on merits (Paras 7-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Madras High Court Registry was wrong in not numbering the anticipatory bail petition on the ground of maintainability under the SC/ST Act, and whether such refusal impinges on the judicial function of the High Court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court Registry could not have exercised judicial power to decide maintainability. The Court directed the Madras High Court Registry to number the petition and place it before an appropriate bench. The petition was disposed of without expressing any views on the merits or on Section 18A of the SC/ST Act.
Law Points
- Judicial function cannot be delegated to registry
- Registry's role is administrative
- Maintainability requires judicial application of mind
- Section 18A SC/ST Act does not bar numbering of petition
