Back
1994 Supreme(MP) 264
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
U. L. BHAT, P. P. NAOLEKAR
RAM KRISHNA BALOTHIA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 1748 Of 1993
Decided On : 03/25/1994
B.K.RAVAT, R.SHRIVASTAVA, V.K.TANKHA
SECTION 18 OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, WHICH DENIES THE BENEFIT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO PERSONS ACCUSED OF OFFENCES UNDER THE ACT, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Headnote:
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ACT HELD CONSTITUTIONAL EXCEPT FOR SECTION 18 - SECTION 18 VIOLATES ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION - IT IS OPPRESSIVE, UNFAIR, AND UNREASONABLE.
Fact of the Case:
PETITIONERS, MOSTLY UPPER CASTE HINDUS AND SOME MUSLIMS, CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 (ACT NO. 33 OF 1989) (ACT). THEY ARGUED THAT THE ACT IS BASED ON CASTE DISCRIMINATION, VIOLATES ARTICLE 15(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND IS NOT SAVED UNDER ARTICLE 15(4). THEY ALSO CHALLENGED THE VAGUENESS OF SECTION 8(A), THE VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14 AND 21 BY SECTION 18, AND THE EXCLUSION OF MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS FROM THE ACT'S PROTECTION.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT, EXCEPT FOR SECTION 18. IT HELD THAT THE ACT IS PROTECTED UNDER ARTICLE 15(4) OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IS INTENDED TO ADVANCE THE MEMBERS OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT SECTION 8(A) IS NECESSARY FOR THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT AND THAT SECTION 18 VIOLATES ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION BY DENYING THE BENEFIT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO PERSONS ACCUSED OF OFFENCES UNDER THE ACT.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL? 2. WHETHER SECTION 3 OF THE ACT VIOLATES ARTICLE 15(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION? 3. WHETHER SECTION 8(A) OF THE ACT IS VAGUE AND ARBITRARY? 4. WHETHER SECTION 18 OF THE ACT VIOLATES ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. THE ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT IS PROTECTED UNDER ARTICLE 15(4) OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IS INTENDED TO ADVANCE THE MEMBERS OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES. 2. SECTION 3 OF THE ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 15(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE IT IS A SPECIAL PROVISION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES. 3. SECTION 8(A) OF THE ACT IS NOT VAGUE AND ARBITRARY BECAUSE IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT. 4. SECTION 18 OF THE ACT VIOLATES ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE IT DENIES THE BENEFIT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO PERSONS ACCUSED OF OFFENCES UNDER THE ACT.
Final Decision: THE COURT STRUCK DOWN SECTION 18 OF THE ACT AS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
( 1 ) THE decision in this petition shall also govern disposal of the petitions, list of which is annexed herewith.
( 2 ) THE petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act No. 33 of 1989) (for short hereinafter called the Act) in these petitions. Most of the petitioners are members of upper caste Hindus and some of them are Muslims. Offences under Section 3 of the Act are registered against the petitioners along with other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
( 3 ) THE contentions raised by the petitioners for challenging the constitutional validity of the Act are; (i) the entire Act is based on caste discrimination and, therefore, infringes Article 15 (1) of the Constitution of India and it is not saved under Article 15 (4) of the Constitution; (ii) Section 3 of the Act provides for punishment for offences of atrocities against persons belonging to members of scheduled tribes by any person other than a member of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes which cannot be said to be a provision for advancement of the scheduled castes and tribes; (iii) Section 8 (a) of the Act is vague, unclear and preposterous, inasmuch as, it tries to create a premature criminal liability in an ambiguous manner; and (iv) Section 18 of the Act is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the questions raised by the counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary and useful to refer to the broad spectrum of the Act and the statement of object and reasons. The Act was brought into force to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes, to provide for special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
( 5 ) SECTION 2 (a) defines 'atrocity' to mean an offence punishable under Section 3. Section 3 deals with the offences against members of a schedule caste or a scheduled tribe by any person who is not a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, Section 4 lays down punishment for neglect of duties by public servant, who is not a member of scheduled caste or tribe, for willful neglect in the performance of his duties. Section 5 contains a provision for enhanced punishment for subsequent conviction. Section 8 (a) raises a presumption as to abetment of offence. Section 10 relates to experiment of persons likely to commit offences. Section 14 provides for establishment of Special Courts for the purpose of providing for speedy trial of offences under the Act. Section 15 relates to appointment of Special Public prosecutors to conduct cases in the Special Courts. By virtue of Section 18, Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is made non-operative with regard to the offences enumerated under the Act. Section 19 provides that Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act shall not apply to persons found guilty of an offence under the Act. Section 21 imposes a duty on the Government to ensure effective implementation of the Act. The entire scheme of the Act is to provide protection to the members of the scheduled castes and schedule tribes and to provide for Special Court and speedy trial of the offences.
( 6 ) ARTICLE 15 (1) and (4) of the Constitution reads: 15 (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, cast, sex, place of birth or any of them. (4)Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
( 7 ) ARTICLE 15 (4) has referred to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Article 341 of the Constitution autho
