Back
1996 Supreme(Pat) 687
PATNA HIGH COURT
Nagendra Rai and G.S.Chaube JJ.
Haresh Kumar Singh
Versus
Union Of India
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction No. 38 of 1992 ; 60 of 1992 ; 636 of 1992 ;
Decided On : OCTOBER 11, 1996
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not discriminatory or arbitrary, it is workable, and the appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judges as special courts is in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Headnote:
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - CLASSIFICATION - WORKABILITY - APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COURT - QUASHING OF FIR - POWER OF HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act) on various grounds, including that it was discriminatory and arbitrary, that it was not workable, and that the appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judges as special courts was in breach of the provisions of the Act. The petitioners also sought to quash the FIRs registered against them under the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Act was not discriminatory or arbitrary, as it was based on a reasonable classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as a vulnerable section of society that required special protection. The Court also held that the Act was workable, as it provided for the institution, investigation, and trial of cases under the Act, and that the appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judges as special courts was in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Court further held that the power to quash FIRs at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and that the allegations in the FIRs in the present cases made out a prima facie case under the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Act is discriminatory and arbitrary? 2. Whether the Act is workable? 3. Whether the appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judges as special courts is in breach of the provisions of the Act? 4. Whether the FIRs registered against the petitioners should be quashed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as a vulnerable section of society that requires special protection is reasonable and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. The Act provides for the institution, investigation, and trial of cases under the Act, and therefore it is workable. 3. The appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judges as special courts is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 4. The power to quash FIRs at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and the allegations in the FIRs in the present cases make out a prima facie case under the Act.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act and the appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judges as special courts. The Court also refused to quash the FIRs registered against the petitioners.
Nagendra Rai, J.
1. In these twenty-two applications, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and have prayed for quashing their prosecutions under the aforesaid Act.
2. As the common questions of law are involved in all the cases they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The allegations against the petitioners in all the cases are that they have committed offence under the Act and in some cases they are also alleged to have committed offences under the Penal Code. It is not necessary to state the facts of all of the cases as the submissions advanced by the counsels for the petitioners in all the cases are with regard to vires of the Act on different grounds which require no reference to the factual matters. In some case, the learned Counsels referred to the facts of the cases to show that even if the allegations are accepted on their face value no case under the said Act or IPC is made and in that view of matter the facts of those cases will be referred to while dealing with the said submission.
4. The petitioners have challenged the Act and its provisions on three grounds namely the Act itself is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it is arbitrary and discriminatory in the sense that it discriminates between Sch. Castes and Sch. Trib on the one hand and non-Sch. Castes and Tribes on the other hand in the matter fixing criminal liability. The atrocities committed by the persons not being member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes category is punishable under the Act whereas offences of atrocities committed by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes upon Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are not punishable under the Act. (ii) The Act itself is not workable as there is neither provision for institution and investigation of the case nor provision for trial or appeal against the judgment of the Special court (iii) The appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judges as a special court by the Government notification is in breach of provisions of Sec. 14 of the Act as only the court of session could be specified as special court. The counsels appearing for the respondents/opposite parties have combated all the submissions.
5. Before proceeding to consider the submissions advanced at the Bar it will be apt to state in brief the relevant provisions of the Act. The Act has been enacted to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, to provide for special Courts for the trial of such offences and for giving relief and rehabilitation to the victim of such offences and for such matter connected therewith or incidental thereto.
6. Atrocity has been defined under Sec. 2 (1) (a) of the Act which means an offence punishable under Sec. 3 of the Act. Sec. 3 of the Act provides for punishments for offences of atrocities detailed in the said section. Sec. 4 provides for punishment for neglect of duties by persons not being a member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Chapter III deals with the externment of a person likely to commit an offence of atrocity in any areas including in Scheduled Areas or Tribal Areas as referred to in Article 244 of the Constitution. Chapter IV contains provision for constitution of special court and appointment of Special Public Prosecutor. Sec. 18 falling under Chapter V excludes the application of Sec. 438, Cr. P.C. with regard to the offences under the Act and Sec. 19 under the said Chapter excludes the application of Sec. 360, Cr. P.C. and provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act with regard to the persons found guilty for the offences under the Act. Sec. 20 says that this Act shall have overriding effect over the other laws.
7. The statements of Objects and Reasons for enactment of the Act has been published in
