The “Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of the year 1989” and the “Amendment Act of 2018,” which were implemented to overturn the ruling made by the Maharashtra High Court in the matter of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharastra, have been central to the case of prithvi raj chauhan v union of india.
Enacted in 1989, the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act aims to prevent and halt discriminatory practices and atrocities against the Schedule caste and Schedule tribe members. The reason for the enactment of this act was the inadequacy of the existing statutes, such as the IPC and CRPC, in mitigating the hate crimes against the scheduled caste and scheduled tribal members. During the 1950s to 1990s, this town was the target of numerous horrible and horrible atrocities.
prithvi raj chauhan v union of india: Background of the Case
- In a 2018 ruling in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra, the High Court of Maharashtra diluted some provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.
- The court noted that the Act had been abused by some and that, as a result, some innocent people had been punished without having done anything wrong. Nonetheless, a number of legal scholars expressed satisfaction that this ruling reduced the efficacy of the Prevention of Atrocities Act.
- However, there was a widespread backlash from the advasis and schedule class following the ruling.
- As a result, the parliament introduced an amendment, officially known as the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities Act) 2018, to void the decision’s effects. The parliament removed the case’s impact by adding 18A to the act in this modification.
prithvi raj chauhan v union of india Case Facts
- Section 18A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act of 2018 was challenged by the petitioner as unconstitutional.
- The petition was filed with the argument that the ruling in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra & Others was nullified by section 18A of the Act.
- The protections put in place by the court in the Kashinath Mahajan case were overturned by the parliament. The following were the reversible safeguards:
- Registration of a First Information Report against an individual should not need preliminary investigation; or
- The investigating officer shall not request authorization before making an arrest, if required, of any individual against whom an allegation of violating this addition has been made. Procedures other than those outlined in this Act or the code shall be followed.
- Notwithstanding any court ruling, order, or directive, the provisions of section 438 of the criminal procedure code shall not be applicable to a case under this Act.
- The impact of Kashinath Mahajan was lessened by the 2018 amendment. Stopping the abuse of the Act was the main goal of the decision made in this case.
- The Kashinath Mahajan ruling was overturned by the parliament because it incited nationwide demonstrations.
- A review appeal against the Kashinath Mahajan ruling was also submitted.
- Parliament did not wait to hear the review petition from the court.
- The Central Government was requested to respond to the petition on September 7, 2018, by means of a notice from the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court stated in an affidavit submitted on October 29, 2018, that the parliament is authorized to approve the Act’s change.
- On September 13, 2019, the three-judge bench, made up of Justices Mishra, Shah, and Gavai, was mentioned in the review petition by the two-judge bench, composed of Arun Mishra and Uday Umesh Lalit.
- The court declared the 2018 amendment to be constitutional following a hearing before the three-judge bench.
anticipatory bail
- In 1973, anticipatory bail was first implemented as a result of the 41st Law Commission’s recommendation. There is no basic right to anticipatory bail since it is a statutory right and does not form part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by article 21 of the indian constitution.
- Because there is no provision for anticipatory bail, offenders are forced to reconsider before using any illegal tactics. The unique conditions and segments of Indian society require similar initiatives to assist Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes individuals.
prithvi raj chauhan v union of india Issues
- Is there a violation of fundamental rights by the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Act?
- Is it legal to grant anticipatory bail according to section 438 of the criminal procedure code for crimes filed under the atrocities act 1989?
- Is it lawfully permissible to discriminate against Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes people in protective measures based on orders given in the Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case?
- Does the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act of the year 2018 have constitutional validity?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioner’s attorney argued that the protections established in the cases of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra and others were crucial because they were designed to stop persons from abusing the Act.
- The attorney further argued that it is unconstitutional to violate article 21 of the indian constitution by placing a complete ban on the granting of anticipatory bail. It violates people’s fundamental rights to life and personal liberty.
Respondent:
- On behalf of the Central Government, Attorney General KK Venugopal argued that the revision was adopted in response to a high number of acquittal cases, improper police application of the act, and ineffective accused prosecution. Additionally, they contended that the change complies with the act’s goal of protecting the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes segment of society.
prithvi raj chauhan v union of india Judgment
- The Supreme Court of India’s three-judge panel in this case overturned the ruling in the Kashinath Mahajan case and maintained the constitutionality of section 18-A of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act of the year 2018. The Supreme Court ruled that the Kashinath Mahajan case ruling had placed undue hardship on Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes.
- Regarding section 18-A of the Act, the court ruled that, in terms of the statute’s requirement for a preliminary investigation prior to filing a formal complaint, the inquiry is only allowed under the guidelines established in in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P.
- The court further declared that offenses covered by the SC/ST Amendment Act will not be eligible for anticipatory bail. Justice Ravindra Bhat said in the concurring opinion that anticipatory bail should only be granted in certain situations. The court has previously declared that a SC/SCT Act lawsuit must not establish a prima facie case in order for anticipatory relief to be granted.
- Justice Ravindra Bhat also spoke about treating all citizens equally and fostering a sense of camaraderie because these ideas are just as vital as an individual’s right to personal freedom.
- The accused must obtain the consent of the Senior Superintendent of Police before an arrest can be made if the court rules that the accused is not a public servant and that the arrest may only be made with the approval of the appointing authority.
The court additionally decided that offenses against members of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes protected by the SC/ST Amendment Act shall not be eligible for anticipatory bail. Preliminary bail can only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, according to Judge Ravindra Bhat. The court had previously noted that, in accordance with the SC/ST Act, anticipatory bail could only be awarded in cases in which there was no prima facie case. In addition to giving the ruling, he discussed treating all citizens equally and promoting brotherhood since both ideas are as important as an individual’s right to personal liberty. The court additionally concluded that an arrest can only be undertaken with the consent of the appointing authority in the case of an accused public official, and with the authorization of the Senior Superintendent of Police in the case of an accused non-public servant.
The ruling rendered by the highest court was accurate, as there are several examples of the SC/ST community’s rights being flagrantly infringed upon. We occasionally witness injustice being done not just to males but also to women and children. Furthermore, a few defenceless members of this community lost their fundamental rights after falling victim to a cruel trap set by others. Because the Maharastra High Court’s ruling was prejudiced in favour of this community, it was intended to be overturned while taking the veil of ignorance into account. Ultimately, the highest court issued a commendable ruling.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
