26-Month SC/ST Act Delay: Rajasthan High Court Seeks Affidavits from Former IOs

The Rajasthan High Court has taken a stern view of an inordinate 26-month delay in completing an investigation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, directing all former investigating officers and their supervisory authorities to file affidavits explaining the reasons for the lapse.

Justice Shubha Mehta, presiding over a single bench, was hearing a petition filed by Jitendra Kumar seeking a fair investigation into an FIR lodged by him in 2024 at Sadar Bayana police station in Bharatpur. The FIR, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including attempt to murder, and the SC/ST Act, was met with a counter-complaint from the accused. However, despite the passage of over two years, no charge sheet had been filed, and the investigating officer had been changed five to six times during the period.

Petitioner's Plea for Time-Bound Justice

The petitioner argued that Rule 7(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 mandates that a charge sheet be filed within 60 days of the FIR. He contended that no plausible reason for the delay had been recorded in writing, as required by the rule. Further, Rule 7(3) provides for a quarterly review of all pending investigations by a high-level supervisory committee comprising the Home Secretary, the Secretary of the Social Justice Department, the Director of Prosecution, and senior police officials. The petitioner submitted that no such review appeared to have taken place, and the constant change of investigating officers was causing him harassment, as each new officer summoned him for verification afresh.

Current IO's Assurance and Court's Concern

During the hearing, the present investigating officer, Dinesh Kumar Meena, ADG Police (Civil Rights), informed the court that he had been appointed on July 23, 2026, and had prepared a factual report. He assured the court that the final result of investigation would be submitted within two weeks. The Public Prosecutor, Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, confirmed this position.

The court, however, expressed deep concern that despite nearly 26–27 months having elapsed, the investigation remained incomplete without any satisfactory explanation. The bench observed that the former investigating officers and their supervisory authorities were best placed to explain why the mandatory 60-day timeline and the quarterly review mechanism had not been complied with.

Directives for Accountability

Finding no evidence that the supervisory committee under Rule 7(3) had ever reviewed the pending investigation, Justice Mehta directed the Public Prosecutor to obtain affidavits from all former investigating officers in the case, as well as the authorities specified under Rule 7(3) – including the Home Secretary, the Secretary of the Social Justice Department, the Director of Prosecution, and senior police officials. These affidavits must explain the reasons for the delay and the non-compliance with the review provisions.

The court made it clear that on the next date of hearing, the affidavits must be placed on record. The matter has been listed for further consideration on September 7, 2026.

Key Observations from the Bench

"The fact that even after a long period of about 26-27 months, the investigation is not complete is worrisome and no proper reason for this delay has been shown to this court so far."

The bench also noted that former investigating officers were in a position to explain the reasons for inaction and that there was no indication that any supervisory committee had conducted a review of the pending investigation.

This order underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring accountability in the investigation of offences under the SC/ST Act, where delays can compound the trauma of victims. The direction to seek affidavits from former IOs and supervisory officials sets a precedent for enforcing the mandatory timelines and review mechanisms prescribed under the law.