Supreme Court's Big judgment to prevent misuse of SC-ST Act [Read]

The Apex Court was examining the question whether The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 famous as SC-ST Act is being misused and whether Anticipatory Bail can be granted in such cases or not? or not granting Anticipatory Bail is discriminatory and against the principle of fair just and reasonable procedure or not?

The few brief facts of the case are as follows, the complainant was earlier employed as a Store Keeper in the Government College of Pharmacy, Karad and the accused was serving as Director of Technical Education in the State of Maharashtra at the relevant time. The Accused had passed an order in his official capacity which according to the complaint was an offence which comes within the purview of the SC-ST Act.

Here the most relevant part of the judgment i.e. Para no. 83 of the Judgment in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. The State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No.416 Of 2018] reads as under:

83. Our conclusions are as follows:
i) Proceedings in the present case are clear abuse of process of court and are quashed.

ii) 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. We approve the view taken and approach of the Gujarat High Court in Pankaj D Suthar (supra) and Dr. N.T. Desai (supra) and clarify the judgments of this Court in Balothia (supra) and Manju Devi (supra);

iii) 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 S.S.P. which may be granted in appropriate cases if considered necessary for reasons recorded. Such reasons must be scrutinized by the Magistrate for permitting further detention.

iv) 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.

v) Any violation of direction (iii) and (iv) will be actionable by way of disciplinary action as well as contempt.

The above directions are prospective.