CASE BRIEF: PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN v. UNION OF INDIA, (2020) 4 SCC 727

INTRODUCTION

In Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, decided on February 10, 2020, the Supreme Court of India rendered a decision regarding the constitutionality of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). In order to overturn the consequences of the Court’s previous ruling in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018), which had imposed certain procedural safeguards, such as the need for a preliminary inquiry prior to registering a First Information Report (FIR) and prior approval for arrests under the SC/ST Act, this provision was introduced through the 2018 Amendment Act. 

In Prathvi Raj Chauhan, the petitioners argued that Section 18A prohibited anticipatory bail in cases brought under the Act and permitted “automatic arrest” without a formal complaint or prior consent, in violation of fundamental rights protected by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. 

However, highlighting that Section 18A was a legislative reaction to protect the rights of marginalized people and guarantee the successful implementation of the SC/ST Act, the Supreme Court maintained the constitutionality of the provision. The Court reaffirmed that the goal of a casteless society will remain a pipe dream until the Act’s provisions are strictly implemented, while acknowledging the ongoing marginalization of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 

This ruling demonstrates the judiciary’s understanding of the legislature’s responsibility to pass legislation intended to right historical wrongs and safeguard weaker segments of the population. While weighing worries about possible abuse of such provisions, the Court upheld Section 18A, reinforcing the need for strict safeguards to avoid atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The High Court of Maharashtra weakened certain provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 in its 2018 decision in the matter of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra. The court observed that some people had exploited the Act, leading to the punishment of innocent people who had done nothing wrong. However, other legal experts were pleased that this decision diminished the effectiveness of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. But after the decision, the advasis and schedule class widely reacted negatively. In order to nullify the decision’s implications, the parliament enacted an amendment called as the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities Act) 2018. By amending the legislation to include 18A, the parliament eliminated the case’s effect. 

The petitioner argued that Section 18A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act of 2018 was unconstitutional. The petition argued that section 18A of the Act invalidated the decision in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra & Others. The parliament reversed the safeguards established by the court in the Kashinath Mahajan case. The reversible safeguards were as follows: Preliminary inquiry should not be required before registering a First Information Report against an individual; or if someone has been accused of violating this provision, the investigating officer is not allowed to ask permission before initiating an arrest, if necessary. Procedures other than those specified in the code or this Act must be adhered to. 

The 2018 amendment mitigated the effects of Kashinath Mahajan. The primary objective of the ruling in this instance was to prevent the misuse of the Act. The parliament overturned the Kashinath Mahajan ruling because it sparked protests across the country. Additionally, a review appeal against the Kashinath Mahajan decision was filed. Parliament didn’t wait to hear the court’s review petition. On September 7, 2018, the Supreme Court sent a notice to the Central Government asking it to reply to the petition. In an affidavit filed on October 29, 2018, the Supreme Court declared that the parliament has the power to authorize the Act’s modification. The review petition filed on September 13, 2019, by the two-judge bench consisting of Arun Mishra and Uday Umesh Lalit, mentioned the three-judge bench consisting of Justices Mishra, Shah, and Gavai. After a hearing before the three-judge bench, the court ruled that the 2018 modification was lawful.

ISSUES RAISED

• Does the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Act violate fundamental rights? 
• Is it permissible to award anticipatory bail for crimes filed under the Atrocities Act 1989 in accordance with section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code? 
• Based on the rulings in the Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case, is it legal to discriminate against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under protective measures? 
• Is the 2018 Amendment Act to the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) constitutional?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

• According to the petitioner’s lawyer, the safeguards put in place in the Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra and other instances were essential since they were intended to prevent abuse of the Act. 
• The lawyer further contended that a total prohibition on anticipatory bail is an unlawful violation of article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It infringes upon people’s basic rights to personal freedom and life.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

• Attorney General KK Venugopal argued on behalf of the Central Government that the change was adopted in response to ineffective accused prosecution, a large number of acquittal cases, and incorrect police administration of the act. Furthermore, they argued that the modification aligns with the act’s objective of safeguarding the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes component of the population.

JUDGMENT

Section 18-A of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act of 2018 was upheld as constitutional by the three-judge panel of the Supreme Court of India, which reversed the Kashinath Mahajan case’s decision. The Supreme Court declared that Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes had been subjected to undue hardship as a result of the Kashinath Mahajan case verdict.
The court decided that, with respect to section 18-A of the Act, which requires a preliminary investigation before a formal complaint is filed, the inquiry is only permitted in accordance with the rules set down in the Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. case.
The court further ruled that anticipatory bail would not be available for offenses specified by the SC/ST Amendment Act. In the concurring opinion, Justice Ravindra Bhat stated that anticipatory bail ought to be issued only under specific circumstances. The court has previously ruled that anticipatory relief cannot be provided in a SC/SCT Act lawsuit unless a prima facie case is established.
As important as an individual’s right to personal freedom, Justice Ravindra Bhat also discussed the importance of treating all residents fairly and encouraging a feeling of community.  If the court determines that the accused is not a public worker and that the arrest can only be made with the appointing authority’s approval, the accused must first have the Senior Superintendent of Police’s authorization. 

The court also ruled that anticipatory bail would not be available for offenses committed against Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe individuals who are protected by the SC/ST Amendment Act. Judge Ravindra Bhat stated that only in extreme cases can preliminary bail be granted. According to the SC/ST Act, anticipatory bail could only be granted in situations where there was no prima facie evidence, the court had previously stated. Along with rendering the decision, he spoke about the importance of treating all citizens fairly and encouraging fraternity, both of which are as fundamental as a person’s right to personal freedom. 

The court further determined that an arrest can only be made with the approval of the Senior Superintendent of Police in the case of an accused non-public worker and the consent of the appointing authority in the case of an accused public official.

CONCLUSION

The ruling by the Supreme Court emphasizes the fine line that must be drawn between safeguarding underprivileged groups and resolving worries about the abuse of protective laws. The goal of the 2018 change to Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was to overturn the procedural protections that the court had established in the Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case. The SC/ST Act’s intention to offer prompt and severe justice against atrocities was undermined by these protections, even though they were meant to stop fake cases.

Alleged infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution served as the foundation for the petitioners’ challenge to Section 18A. They contended that people accused under the Act were disproportionately affected by the prohibition on anticipatory bail and the lack of a preliminary investigation or prior authorization for arrests, which raised the possibility of misuse. However, the Court maintained the constitutionality of the clause, highlighting the ongoing necessity of shielding Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes from systematic violence and discrimination.

The Court recognized in its analysis that although there may be cases of abuse, these cannot outweigh the systemic injustices that marginalized people must contend with. It reaffirmed that by correcting previous injustices, the SC/ST Act achieves a larger goal of social justice rather than only being punitive. The ruling emphasized the need to honor legislative intent, especially when it aims to address ingrained socioeconomic problems. The Court underscored the significance of strict legislative protections for disadvantaged groups by upholding Section 18A.

The court’s changing strategy for striking a balance between people’s rights and the general demand for justice is also reflected in the ruling. The Court acknowledged that, as opposed to weakening statutory provisions, any abuse of the law must be dealt with by rigorous judicial review on an individual basis. This viewpoint is consistent with the larger constitutional obligation to protect the rights of the downtrodden and to ensure equality.

To sum up, the Prathvi Raj Chauhan ruling emphasizes the significance of strong safeguards for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes while upholding judicial supervision to avoid abuse. It reaffirms the judiciary’s role in interpreting laws to fulfill their intended purpose and the legislature’s right to pass legislation addressing systemic prejudice. By upholding the constitution’s commitment to social justice, the ruling guarantees that laws protecting the rights and dignity of underprivileged groups will continue to be effective.