Case Note & Summary
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which was inserted by amendment to nullify certain directions issued by the Supreme Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra. The petitioners argued that Section 18A arbitrarily curtailed the right to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, dispensed with preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR, and removed the requirement of prior approval for arrest, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution. They contended that the amendment was irrational and unjust, and sought its striking down on the same anvil as Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. The Union of India defended the amendment, arguing that it was necessary to protect the rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to prevent delays in investigation. The Court noted that the review petitions against Dr. Subhash Kashinath had already been allowed, and directions (iii) to (v) requiring prior approval for arrest and preliminary enquiry had been recalled. Consequently, the challenge to Section 18A had become largely academic. The Court upheld the validity of Section 18A, holding that protective discrimination in favour of SCs/STs is permissible under Article 15. The Court observed that the Act is a special statute intended to prevent atrocities and that the bar on anticipatory bail, dispensation of preliminary enquiry, and removal of prior approval for arrest are necessary to ensure effective investigation and to prevent harassment of victims. The Court emphasized that the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is not absolutely barred if no prima facie case is made out or the complaint is mala fide, as clarified in Dr. Subhash Kashinath (para 83(ii)), which was not recalled. The Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the constitutional validity of Section 18A.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Protective Discrimination - Validity of Section 18A SC/ST Act - The Court held that protective discrimination in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is permissible under Article 15 of the Constitution. Section 18A, which restores the position prior to Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, is not unconstitutional. The Court noted that the review petitions had already recalled directions (iii) to (v) of Dr. Subhash Kashinath, rendering the challenge academic. (Paras 1-4) B) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Bar under Section 18A SC/ST Act - Section 18A(2) provides that Section 438 CrPC shall not apply to cases under the SC/ST Act. The Court upheld this bar, noting that the Act is a special statute and the bar is intended to prevent harassment of victims. The Court clarified that in cases where no prima facie case is made out or the complaint is mala fide, the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is not absolutely barred, as held in Dr. Subhash Kashinath (para 83(ii)) but that direction was not recalled. (Paras 2-4) C) Criminal Procedure - Registration of FIR - Preliminary Enquiry - Section 18A(1)(a) SC/ST Act provides that no preliminary enquiry is required for registration of FIR. The Court upheld this provision, noting that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes had recommended prompt registration of FIRs without preliminary enquiry. The Court observed that requiring preliminary enquiry would delay justice and defeat the purpose of the Act. (Paras 2-4) D) Criminal Procedure - Arrest - Prior Approval - Section 18A(1)(b) SC/ST Act provides that investigating officer does not require approval for arrest. The Court upheld this provision, noting that the directions in Dr. Subhash Kashinath requiring prior approval of appointing authority or SSP were recalled in review. The Court held that such safeguards are not warranted as they would hamper investigation and are not provided in the Act. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which nullified certain directions in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, is unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the constitutional validity of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court held that the challenge had become academic in view of the recall of directions (iii) to (v) in Dr. Subhash Kashinath, and that protective discrimination is permissible under Article 15.
Law Points
- Section 18A of SC/ST Act is valid
- anticipatory bail not available
- no preliminary enquiry required
- no prior approval for arrest
- protective discrimination permissible
