Summary
On review of the 2018 Atrocities Act judgment, the Court recalled directions requiring prior approval for arrest and a preliminary inquiry, together with their disciplinary and contempt consequences. It held that these additional procedural restrictions lacked statutory basis, conflicted with protective equality and mandatory registration of cognizable offences, and exceeded the permissible judicial role.
Issues
- Whether the Court should retain its additional approval and preliminary-inquiry requirements for proceedings under the Atrocities Act.
Held
- Information disclosing a cognizable offence requires prompt FIR registration under the governing rule in Lalita Kumari. An inquiry into whether a complaint is frivolous or motivated cannot be imposed as a prerequisite despite disclosure of such an offence. Ordinary safeguards against routine arrest remain relevant. (¶¶ 16, 17, 53, 65)
- No statutory power authorised the appointing authority to approve arrest of a public servant. Prosecution sanction concerns a different stage and cannot be transplanted to arrest. The corresponding SSP-approval condition for other accused was also unwarranted; both risked delay and interference with investigation. (¶¶ 38, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63)
- Misuse in individual cases does not justify presuming an entire protected class prone to false complaints or imposing disadvantages absent from general procedure. Appropriate quashing and the absence-of-prima-facie-case exception to the anticipatory-bail bar supplied safeguards without rewriting the Act. (¶¶ 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 57)
- The directions encroached on legislative functions, undermined protective discrimination and fell outside permissible Article 142 relief. The special scrutiny tied to the rejected approval system and its consequential enforcement directions could not remain. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 36, 64, 65, 67)
Result
The review petitions were allowed to the stated extent: paragraph 83 directions (iii) and (iv) of the earlier judgment were recalled, and consequential direction (v) ceased to operate. The earlier individual quashing and anticipatory-bail conclusions were not recalled by this order. Pending intervention and other applications were disposed of.