Appellant: Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Respondent: The State of Maharashtra

Background:
The case is landmark due to the fact because it laid down as to how Schedule tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 is being misused and there is importance of quashing complaints where no concrete evidence could be found against the said wrongdoer. The complainant was an employee and employed as Storekeeper in the Government College of Pharmacy, Karad and later posted at Government Distance Education Institute, Pune.

He filed a complaint against his seniors under The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 based on the derogatory comments and adverse remark passed by the seniors against him in the service records. The FIR was filed and the investigating officer, acted against the persons involved, as the persons involved were class I persons, he requested U/s. 197 Cr Pc for the sanction. The appellant was in charge and served as The Director of Technical Education at that time in the State of Maharashtra.

The appellant refused to sanction the same and Summary Report was filed by the Investigating Officer and which was not accepted by the Court. The aggrieved filed another complaint against the State Government stating that they could only get sanction from there as they were Class  I officers. The appellant has filed an application for quashing the same complaint but the same was set aside. So, herein the appeal has been filed before this court to decide that any action could be taken against officials who were acting in official capacity and what if the allegation made is false providing with remedy for the same.

Issues Raised

1. The first issue which was raised was that any mala fide allegation made against officers can be ground for prosecution if such officers were acting within their official capacity?
2. If such allegation was falsely made what is the remedy for the same?

Facts

1. Respondent was an employee in a Government College of Pharmacy, Karad and filed a First Information Report (FIR) against his two seniors who had written adverse remarks and derogatory comments in the annual confidential report these two officials did not belong to the SC/ST caste and it was alleged that it was done deliberately by the officers due to caste indifferences.
    
2. Police took an action against the two accused under section 197 of Cr PC but the two refused such sanction.
    
3. Therefore, Respondent filed a complaint against the Appellant on the ground that the Director of Technical education was not competent to grant/refuse such sanction as the two officers are class-1 officers and therefore only the state government could grant such sanction.
    
4. This case was registered under the following sections:
   The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
   
   1. 3(1)(ix)
   2. 3(2)(vi)
   3. 3(2)(vii)
      
      The Indian Penal Code, 1860
      
      1. Section 182
      2. Section 192
      3. Section 193
      4. Section 203
      5. Section 219 read with section 34
          
5. The appellant filed an application for quashing of the said complaint but the same was dismissed by the High Court.

Contentions Raised
Appellant

1. No offence was committed under section 3(1)(ix), 3(2)(vi), 3(2)(vii) of the Atrocities Act and also under section 182, 192, 193, 203 and 219 of IPC therefore it was argued that the complaint should have been quashed by the HC.
    
2. It was alleged that the FIR was lodged after five years of the order passed by the appellant and the order passed was also erroneous and because of all this proceeding could not have taken place. Moreover, in absence of any allegation of malafide even if order passed by the appellant was erroneous proceedings against him are not called for.
    
3. It was stated that Jeopardizing liberty of a person on an untried unilateral version, without any verification or tangible material, is against the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Before liberty of a person is taken away, there must be fair, reasonable and just procedure. It was stated that the offences which are specified under Atrocities Act depended solely on the fact of the complaint which may not be true and no supportive evidence for the same could be found. This endangers the fundamental right provided under the constitution because without any valid proof or verification the person is held liable.
    
4. It was argued when there is no proof for such material substance then there should be an exercise for eliminating the use of arbitrary power of arrest provided that there should be preliminary enquiry thereto reason to be provided as to why such arrest was made.
    
5. It was argued that If an arrest is effected, while granting remand, the Magistrate must pass a speaking order as to correctness or otherwise of the reasons for which arrest is effected. These requirements will enforce right of concerned citizens under Articles 14 and 21 without in any manner affecting genuine objects of the Act.
    
6. It was argued that since the denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, courts should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope
   of Section 438, when no such restrictions are imposed by the legislature in the terms of that section. The learned Counsel added a new dimension to the argument by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution. He urged that Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of an individual.

Respondent

1. It was argued that when the law is made there is no need for the court to issue guidelines provided there was no need to go for validating the provisions in The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
    
2. After taking inference from several cases it was argued that anticipatory bail can be granted where the cases are not amounting to any fabrication.
    
3. The Government of India had issued advisories on 03.02.2005, 01.04.2010 and 23.05.2016 also amendments were made in atrocities act stating the provision for special courts as well as exclusive special courts.

Interpretation of Judgement

1. The Court held that after analyzing the submissions, evidences, contentions and from the valuable inputs provided by Amicus Curie, in the absence of any other sole offence calling for arrest in respect of the offences mentioned in the act in which the remedy sought for, no arrest may be done without a written permission from the authority designated in the case of public servant and others.
    
2. The Court observed that in the light of statistics already referred as well as cited decisions and observations of the Standing Committee of Parliament that there is need to safeguard innocent citizens against false implication and unnecessary arrest for which there is no sanction under the law which is against the constitutional guarantee and law of arrest laid down by this Court.
    
3. The Court held that the under privileged need to be protected against any atrocities to give effect to the Constitutional ideals. The Atrocities Act has been enacted with this objective. At the same time, the said Act cannot be converted into a charter for exploitation or oppression by any unscrupulous person or by police for extraneous reasons against other citizens as has been found on several occasions in decisions referred to above. Any harassment of an innocent citizen, irrespective of caste or religion, is against the guarantee of the Constitution. This Court must enforce such a guarantee. Law should not result in caste hatred. The preamble to the Constitution, which is the guiding star for interpretation, incorporates the values of liberty, equality and fraternity.
    
4. It was stated when the person is arrested and produced before the magistrate, then the magistrate must apply his mind to the reasons which have been recorded and such detention should be allowed only if the allegations are found to be true and in accordance with the law.
    
5. The Court held that to avoid false implication, before FIR is registered, preliminary enquiry may be made whether the case falls within the parameters of the Atrocities Act and is not frivolous or motivated.
    
6. The Court observed that Life and personal liberty are the most prized possessions of an individual. The inner urge for freedom is a natural phenomenon of every human being. Respect for life, liberty and property is not merely a norm or a policy of the State but an essential requirement of any civilized society.
    
7. The Court held that complaint filed against the accused needs to be thoroughly examined including the aspect whether the complainant has filed a false or frivolous complaint on earlier occasion. The court should also examine the fact whether there is any family dispute between the accused and the complainant and the complainant must be clearly told that if the complaint is found to be false or frivolous, then strict action will be taken against him in accordance with law. If the connivance between the complainant and the investigating officer is established, then action be taken against the investigating officer in accordance with law.
    
8. Thus, the court held that the proceedings against the appellant must be quashed since there was no merit for such allegation against the complainant.
    
9. The Court observed that It is imperative for the High Courts through its judicial academies to periodically organize workshops, symposiums, seminars and lectures by the experts to sensitize judicial officers, police officers and investigating officers so that they can properly comprehend the importance of personal liberty vis-Ã -vis social interests. They must learn to maintain fine balance between the personal liberty and the social interests.
    
10. This judgment made it clear that there cannot be abuse of the Atrocities Act as the cases are registered with personal motive and vengeance in the pretext of caste discrimination.
     
11. The Caste discrimination as quoted by Dr. BR Ambedkar in his research Paper Castes in India€ presented at the Columbia University, The caste problem is a vast one, both theoretically and practically. Practically, it is an institution that portends tremendous consequences. It is a local problem, but one capable of much wider mischief, for as long as caste in India does exist, Hindus will hardly intermarry or have any social intercourse with outsiders; and if Hindus migrate to other regions on earth, Indian caste would become a world problem€, we need to eradicate the discrimination and the justice to be rendered. The issue is still in existence and the laws are made to curtail those events and not for harassing anyone.

• Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2018 - Arising out of Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Crl) No. 5661 of 2017
• Equivalent Citation: AIR 2018 SC 1498
   
• Court: The Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel & Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
• Appeal Against the Order: Order Passed by High Court of Judicature at Mumbai
• Amicus Curie: Mr. Amrendra Sharan, the learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Advocate
• Appeal Against the Order dated: 05.05.2017
• Appeal Against the Order made for the Case No.: Criminal Application No. 1015 of 2016
• Date of Judgement: 20.03.2018
   

Acts Involved:

1. The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Sections Involved:

• The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
  3(1)(ix), 3(2)(vi), 3(2)(vii)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860
  182, 192, 193, 203, 219 read with Sec. 34
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873
  197, 482
• Constitution of India
  Article 14, 19, 21, 22(1), 32 read with Article 141,15, 16, 226.
• The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)
  43D(4), 43D(5)
• The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Preventions) Act, 1985 (TADA)
  17(4)
• Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC)
  21(3) and 21(4)
• The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS)
  17(4)
• The Prize Competitions Act, (42 of 1955) 4, 5
• The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 5

Reports Referred:

• Concept of Due Process€ and 8th Amendment in US Constitution

Citations Referred:

• Joginder Kumar versus State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260
• MC Abraham versus State of Maharashtra (2003) 2 SCC 649
• Venkatasubramaniam versus M K Mohan Krishnamachari (2009) 10 SCC 488
• Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273
• Rini Johar & Ors. Versus State of MP & Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 703
• Niklesh Tarachand Shah versus (2017) 13 Scale 609, 2017 SCC
• Jones versus State of Tamilnadu (2004) SCC Online Mad 922 : 2004 CriLJ2755
• Dr. N.T. Desai versus State of Gujarat (1997) 2 GLR 942
• Dhiren Prafulbhai Shah versus State of Gujarat (2016) 6 CriLJ 2217
• Pankaj D Suthar versus State of Gujarat (1992) 1 GLR 405
• Sharad versus State of Maharashtra (2015) 4 BomCR (Crl) 545
• State of Jharkhand and Anr. Versus Govind Singh (2005) 10 SCC 437
• Rohitash Kumar and Ors versus Om Prakash Sharma and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 451
• Balothia (supra) and Manju Devi versus Onkarjit Singh Ahluwhalia (2017) 13 SCC 439
• Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Anr. versus State of Maharashtra and Ors (2012) 8 SCC 795
• Shakuntala Devi versus Baljinder Singh (2014) 15 SCC 521
• Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha versus Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161
• Vishaka versus State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241
• Lakshmi Kant Pandey versus Union of India (1983) 2 SCC 244
• Common Cause versus Union of India (1996) 1 SCC 753
• MC Mehta versus State of Tamilnadu (1996) 6 SCC 756
• Supreme Court Bar Association versus Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409
• Dayaram versus Sudhir Batham (2012) 1 SCC 333
• Union of India versus Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754
• Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalayaru versus State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
• Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi versus Raj Narain (1976) 2 SCR 347
• Minerva Mills Limited versus Union of India (1981) 1 SCR 206
• SP Sampath Kumar versus Union of India (1987) ILLJ 128 SC
• Rajesh Kumar versus State (2011) 13 SCC 706
• Madhuri Patil versus Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241
• State of Punjab versus Brijeshwar Singh Chahal (2016) 1 SCC 1
• Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766
• R D Upadhyay versus State of Andhra Pradesh (2007) 15 SCC 337
• Bachpan Bachao Andolan versus Union of India (2011) 5 SCC 1
• Union for Civil Liberties versus Union of India (2010) 5 SCC 318
• People's Union for Civil Liberties versus Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 104 and (2010) 15 SCC 57
• Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity versus State of West Bengal (1996) 4 SCC
• Sunil Batra versus Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494
• Hussainara Khatoon (IV) versus Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 98
• Subramanian Swamy versus Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221
• Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694
• Khedat Mazdoor Chetna Sangath versus State of Madhya Pradesh (1994) 6 SCC 260
• M versus United Nations & Belgium (1972) Inter LR 446
• Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565
• Indra Sawhney and Ors versus Union of India (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217
• Hema Mishra versus State of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 4 SCC 453
• Lal Kamalendra Pratap Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 4 SCC 437
• Kartar Singh versus State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569
• RMD Chamarbaugwalla versus Union of India (1957) AIR 628, (1957) SCR 930
• Pravinchandra N Solanki and Ors. versus State of Gujarat (2012) 1 GLR 499
• State of Punjab versus Dalbir Singh (2012) 3 SCC 346
• Rustom Cavasjee Cooper versus Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248
• Munn versus Illinois [24 L Ed 77] L Ed p.90: US p 142
• Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania versus Casey [120 L Ed 2d 674]
• Noor Aga versus State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 417
• Dhiren Praful Bhai Shah versus State of Gujarat & Another
• Sharad (Supra)
• Lal Kamalendra (Supra
• Amarawati versus State of Uttar Pradesh (2005) Crl LJ 755 (All)
• Dadu alias Tulsidas versus State of Maharashtra (2001) 5 BomCR 264, 2002 CriLJ 3850, 2002 (1) MhLJ 902
• State of Uttar Pradesh versus Bhagwant Kishore Joshi AIR 1964 SC 221
• P Sirajuddin versus State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 595