ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dilip B. Bhosale, C.J., Ramesh Sinha and Yashwant Varma, JJ.
In Re Provision of Section 14a of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015 —Petitioner
versus
Nil —Respondent
Criminal Writ-Public Interest
Litigation No.8 of 2018 With
Satyendra and Anr. —Applicants
versus
State of U.P. —Opp. Party
Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.38755 of 2017 With
Vishnu Behari Tiwari —Petitioner
versus
Union of India and Ors. —Respondents
Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No.11 of 2018
Decided on 10.10.2018

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 is constitutionally valid.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015—Section 14A(2)—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 439—Constitution of India—Articles 14 and 21—Grant of bail—Legal prohibition—Constitutional validity—Enactment is fundamentally penal in character—It must necessarily be viewed not just from standpoint of victim but also accused—Enactment when tested on a constitutional plane must necessarily be interpreted in a manner that rights and interests of both victim as well as accused are safeguarded and balanced—1989 Act is a special statute and would on basic principles of statutory construction, override any other general enactment which may govern investigation, enquiry and trial of criminal offences—Provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. clearly stand eclipsed in light of special procedure put in place by 1989 Act—Concurrent powers recognised as existing in High Courts by virtue of Section 439 Cr.P.C. stand impliedly excluded and overridden. (Paras 24, 27 and 28)

       (B) Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015—Section 14A(2)—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 439—Constitution of India—Articles 14 and 21—Grant of bail—Legal prohibition—Constitutional validity—While legislature has impliedly excluded powers of High Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. it has provided to an aggrieved person a substantive right of appeal both on facts and on law in terms of sub-section (2)—Legislative exercise cannot be said to suffer from any spectre of manifest arbitrariness so as to compel us to strike it down—Impugned provision neither places any restriction on exercise of right to seek bail nor does it place or require aggrieved person to overcome any arbitrary pre-conditions to assail an order refusing bail—It preserves right of an aggrieved person to question before High Court even an order granting bail—Quite far from an annihilation of any right flowing to an aggrieved person under Section 439 Cr.P.C. There is in fact a preservation of such a right albeit by way of a statutory appeal before High Court—Submission with respect to excessive legislation is noticed only to be rejected since Section 14A as it stands is identical in its language as that employed in the Bill which was originally tabled in Parliament—Mere fact that Standing Committee did not dwell on this issue or frame any recommendation cannot possibly be countenanced as a ground to invalidate sub section (2)—Ultimately it is not for Court to delve into motive of legislation—Review by Court must be confined to testing its validity on settled constitutional principles—Legislative intent appears to be construction of an all-embracing statute which would deal with all possible issues that may arise out of an investigation, enquiry or trial of offenses under 1989 Act. (Paras 32, 35 and 36)

       (C) Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015—Section 14A—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 397 and 482—Constitution of India—Articles 226/227—Grant/Refusal of bail—While constitutional and inherent powers of High Court are not ousted by Section 14A, they cannot be invoked in cases and situations where an appeal would lie under Section 14A—Insofar as powers of Court with respect to revisional jurisdiction is concerned, provisions of Section 397 Cr.P.C. stand impliedly excluded by virtue of special provisions made in Section 14A—Word “order” as occurring in sub-section(1) of Section 14A would also include intermediate orders. (Para 121(B), (C))

       (D) Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015—Section 14A—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 190 and 193—Cognizance of offence—Existing Special Courts do not have jurisdiction to directly take cognizance of offences under 1989 Act—This power stands conferred only upon Exclusive Special Courts to be established or Special Courts to be specified in terms of substituted Section 14—However, substitution of Section 14 by Amending Act does not have effect of denuding existing Special Courts of authority to exercise jurisdiction in respect of proceedings under 1989 Act—They would merely not have power to directly take cognizance of offences and would be bound by rigours of Section 193 Cr.P.C.—Even if cognizance has been taken by existing Special Courts directly in light of uncertainty which prevailed, this would not ipso facto render proceedings void ab initio—Ultimately it would be for objector to establish serious prejudice or a miscarriage of justice. (Para 123)

       Result: Reference answered.