Summary
The Supreme Court left Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act intact and disposed of the challenge with clarifications. The earlier general requirements of preliminary inquiry and prior approval for arrest had already been recalled in review. The anticipatory-bail bar remains where the Act prima facie applies, while exceptional relief is available where no prima facie offence is disclosed; the concurrence stressed strict restraint in using that exception.
Issues
- Whether Section 18A should be invalidated for removing preliminary-inquiry and arrest-approval requirements and excluding anticipatory bail.
- What limited judicial safeguards remain where the allegations do not disclose a prima facie offence under the Act.
Provisions considered
- Sections 18 and 18A, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989The provisions were left intact, subject to the stated interpretation concerning prima facie applicability and exceptional judicial relief. (¶¶ Mishra J: 1, Mishra J: 8, Mishra J: 9, Mishra J: 10, Mishra J: 11, Mishra J: 12, Bhat J: 19, Bhat J: 20)
Held
- The general inquiry and arrest-approval directions in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan had already been recalled in the review judgment. The challenge directed at their legislative removal consequently became academic; preliminary inquiry remained governed by the limited circumstances recognised in Lalita Kumari as explained in that review. (¶¶ Mishra J: 4, Mishra J: 8, Mishra J: 9, Mishra J: 12)
- Section 438 does not apply to cases under the Act. If the complaint does not make out a prima facie case attracting the Act, however, the statutory bar does not apply. The Court may also quash exceptional abusive cases under Section 482 on settled parameters. (¶¶ Mishra J: 6, Mishra J: 7, Mishra J: 10, Mishra J: 11)
- In concurrence, Bhat J stressed that pre-arrest relief must be sparing and exceptional where the FIR discloses no prima facie offence and refusal would produce miscarriage of justice or abuse of process. The power must not become an ordinary Section 438 jurisdiction defeating the legislative bar. (¶¶ Bhat J: 1, Bhat J: 19, Bhat J: 20)
- The concurrence situated effective enforcement of the protective legislation within constitutional equality, dignity and fraternity, and emphasised that ordinary trial safeguards remained available to accused persons. (¶¶ Bhat J: 3, Bhat J: 4, Bhat J: 12, Bhat J: 17, Bhat J: 18, Bhat J: 21)
Result
Writ petitions disposed of with the stated clarifications; Section 18A not struck down. Bhat J concurred with supplemental reasons and a caveat concerning exceptional pre-arrest relief.