Back
Cracks Down on Cryptic Orders: Special Courts Must Explain Themselves in SC/ST Cases
In a significant ruling for cases under the , the has ruled that Special Courts cannot take cognizance of offences through . Justice A. Badharudeen, in Nisha V. Nair v. State of Kerala (2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 100), set aside a one-line order from the and remanded the matter for a detailed, reasoned decision. The case pits a junior public health nurse against a health inspector in a heated workplace feud that escalated to allegations under .
Workplace Tensions Boil Over into Criminal Charges
The dispute traces back to 2021 at health centres in Kattakada, Thiruvananthapuram. Appellant Nisha V. Nair, a Junior Public Health Nurse Grade-I, had filed multiple complaints against colleagues, including the de-facto complainant Sasidharan D.K., a Health Inspector at Family Health Centre, Veeranakav u. Her grievances, obtained via RTI, included issues under the , with minutes documenting tensions.
Sasidharan countered with a private complaint on
, alleging atrocities under the
. Police registered FIR No. 251/2022, investigated, and filed a "Further Action Dropped" (FAD) refer report on
, recommending closure. Notice issued to Sasidharan prompted his
(Crl.MP 2196/2022). On
, the Special Court took cognizance against Nisha in a terse order:
"
... Address Sessions Judge..."
—dismissing charges against another accused. Nisha appealed under
.
Appellant's Plea: No Reasons, No Justice
Nisha's counsel argued the order was unreasoned, failing to address the police refer report or specify materials for . They challenged the constitutionality of the , curbing appeals after 180 days—a point later deemed infructuous.
Sasidharan defended, noting the order followed statements from five witnesses he produced. He stressed prima facie evidence sufficed, citing prior precedents on 's unconstitutionality ( Noushad V.T.K. v. State of Kerala , 2023 (6) KHC 172). The Public Prosecutor highlighted ongoing applicability for pre- proceedings ( CBI v. Ramesh Chander Diwan , 2025 KHC 6370).
Court's Razor-Sharp Scrutiny: Reasons Matter in Atrocities Cases
The High Court dissected the impugned order's flaws. It lacked reference to evidence for Sections 3(1)(r) (insulting in public view) and 3(1)(s) (promoting enmity), ignored the refer report's fate, and offered no rationale. Drawing on settled law, Justice Badharudeen emphasized courts' duty post-refer report: verify, accept, reject, or order further probe.
Precedents bolstered the reasoning: - Noushad V.T.K. followed ( Re: S.14A SC/ST Amendment Act , 2018 KHC 5250), striking as violating by irrationally limiting appeals. - 's Ramesh Chander Diwan clarified preserves for pending cases.
The bench rejected brevity for "serious offences," mandating
"reasonable order justifying the cognizance."
"It isthat when a final report with request to drop the proceedings would be filed by the Investigating Officer after investigation, despite issuance of notice to the complainant or the aggrieved person concerned, the court has a duty to verify the report with a view to either accept or reject the same..."
"...Annexure A16 order is also awithout reasons. When serious offences under the, viz., 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), are alleged, the Special Court should pass a reasonable order justifying the cognizance and asimply taking cognizance would not suffice..."
"Indubitably, curtailing the right of appeal beyond the period of limitation... is not justifiable."
Remand for Real Justice: A Template for Future Cases
The appeal succeeded: the order was set aside, remanding Crl.MP 2196/2022 to the Special Court for fresh consideration under . Sasidharan must appear by .
This ruling raises the bar for Special Courts, ensuring transparency in handling. It safeguards against misuse in sensitive SC/ST cases while upholding procedural fairness—potentially guiding nationwide benches facing similar "prima facie" shortcuts.
