The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to interpret the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in line with the legislative intent to protect the freedom of press and the rights of individuals, while also ensuring the protection of members of the Scheduled Caste community.

JUDGMENT :

1. Journalistic endeavour of the petitioner to expose the agonies and deprivations of the members of a scheduled caste community is the subject matter of the instant criminal case. Petitioner being the publisher of a Bengali newspaper where the news item was published seeks protection from arrest in the instant case. Subject matter of the First Information Report (for short 'FIR') is a complaint lodged by a member of the Sabar community alleging that the publication of a news item titled "Mritlu Not Subarpullir Chinta Bhat". It is not death, but denial of food which troubles Sabar community has assaulted the members of the said community and has unsettled the peace and tranquility in the area and adversely affected developmental work amongst the community. The contents of the aforesaid news item refer to a number of deaths in the Lodha Sabar Community which had caused consternation in the area. Enquiries by way of investigative journalism revealed not only lack of medical facilities but denial of basic amenities like drinking water, housing, lack of job cards and voters cards etc. amongst the members of the community. It was also noted in the said report while the local administration blamed the members of the Sabar Community with regard to their unwillingness to avail modern medical facilities, the Secretary of Lodha Sabar Community, however, blamed indifference and lack of initiative on the part of the administration to provide such facilities. We are at a loss as to how the aforesaid publication which has essentially brought to light the agonies and difficulties faced by the members of the aforesaid community in the face of the State apathy could be conceived of as an insult or intimidation or an act to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against the members of the said community disclosing offences under section 3(1)(r) (u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to 'Act of 1989').

2. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the FIR was registered by a member of the aforesaid community expressing his anguish with regard to the contents of the news report. Number of statements of other members of the Sabar Community expressing similar sentiments were also relied upon. That apart, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that the application for anticipatory bail was not maintainable. In view of section 18 A incorporated in the Act of 1989 after the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454. In view of the directions given in the aforesaid judgment relating to registration of FIR and arrest of accused persons under the Act of 1989, the legislature to the Act introduced section 18A which expressly obviated the requirement of preliminary enquiry prior to registration of FIR, or approval for arrest if any, save and except the procedure under the Act or the Code. It is also engrafted a bar to the applicability of section 438 of the Code to a case under this Act notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court. Comparing the words used in section 18A, namely, 'case under this Act' with that sections 18 thereof, namely, "a case involving accusation of having committed an offence under this Act", it is argued that there is no scope of any scrutiny relating to the applicability of the Act once a F.I.R. has been registered under the said Act. Hence, limited enquiry with regard to disclosure of prima facie case as held in various judgments is not permissible in view of the aforesaid amendment. It is also brought to our notice though the constitutional validity of the aforesaid amendment is a subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court, the said Court has not passed any order restraining the operation of section 18A of the Act.

3. We have given anxious considerations to the objections raised by the State both to the maintainability of this petitione