CASE NAME	Subhash Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 (6) SCC 454
CITATION	AIR 2018 SC (CRIMINAL) 498, 2018 (2) ABR (CRI) 194, (2018) 2 BOMCR(CRI) 593
COURT	The Supreme Court of India.
BENCH	Uday Umesh Lalit, Adarsh Kumar Goel
PETITIONERS	Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan
RESPONDENT	State of Maharashtra and Anr.
DECIDED ON	decided on 20th March, 2018

INTRODUCTION

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was passed in order to protect members of these groups against various forms of discrimination, atrocities, and other issues that they may encounter in society. In response to accusations of misuse of the SC/SC Act and the filing of fraudulent cases, the court implemented several measures. The first of them was that this law would not completely prohibit the granting of anticipatory bail to an accused individual.

On October 1, 2019, the Bench of Justices decided about the review petitions submitted in protest of the Subhash Kashinath Mahajan ruling. 2018). In the 51-page ruling authored by Justice Mishra, the Bench reaffirmed the Court’s directives in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan on the registration of FIRs and the arrest of individuals under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (the “Act”). The Bench has determined that the following directions are no longer in effect: An employee of the government may only be arrested with permission from the person who appointed them. An employee who is not in the public eye may only be arrested with the superintendent of police’s approval. The granting authority must record the reasoning behind these approvals.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The complainant, Bhaskar Karbhari Gaikwad, worked at the College of Pharmacy Department. In his Annual Confidential Report, his superiors, Drs. Satish Bhise and Kishor Burade made some disparaging comments. The complainant belonged to a scheduled caste, but the two seniors belonged to an unscheduled caste. The negative entry implied that he lacked moral character and integrity. The complainant, who was offended by this, filed a formal complaint with the Karad Police. Nevertheless, since the two individuals in question were Class-I officials, the investigating officer requested a sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC. Doctor Mahajan, the appellant, declined this sanction. The complainant subsequently filed a formal complaint against the appellant, claiming that only the State Government had the right to approve or disapprove a sanction and that he lacked that authority.
This appeal has been filed because the Bombay High Court declined to dismiss the complaint against the appellant.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Is it feasible to bring charges against law enforcement officials for their official handling of a situation based only on an assertion of malice?
2. Suppose procedural safeguards could be implemented to stop the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC & ST PA Act”) from being used for unwarranted purposes. Is this a fair and just process in line with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

• Provisions for ensuring justice for those wrongfully accused in the Act should be included. The intervener’s attorney recommended precautions like the magistrate’s approval and a preliminary inquiry. 
• The ruling in NT Desai v. State of Gujarat, which held that the court could not stand by and watch while someone’s freedom was given up in response to a malicious allegation, was emphasized. 
• Even someone who has been charged with a horrific crime, such as murder, dacoity, rape, etc., may petition for anticipatory bail on the grounds that he has been wrongly accused; however, due to Section 18’s ban, an individual under the Atrocities Act cannot do so. 
• It was recommended that an internal committee be established in each department, where complaints against false accusations should be filed along with supporting documentation in order to strike a compromise between the rights of victims and the interests of society. Such a committee may be authorized to carry out an initial investigation into the situation. 
• The Act is more vulnerable to abuse as a result of the monetary incentive offered under S. 12(4) of the Act for filing a case since people may file complaints solely to receive the incentive. The attorney also cited NCRB data indicating the high number of bogus cases discovered to have been filed. 

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

• As long as the terms of the Atrocities Act do not need to be upheld, the court is not required to make recommendations after legislation is passed.
• The Act was intended to serve as a strong barrier against historically downtrodden and exploited castes and tribes. The emancipation of the Dalits and tribal communities is one of the major election promises made by numerous political parties in order to win support. About 200 million of the 1.3 billion people who call the country home are Dalits, who make up a sizable section of the populace in diverse locations. 
• There is no assumption that members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may collectively abuse the legal provisions, nor do the higher castes or the privileged class turn to this. A person’s caste cannot be linked to a fake report they have submitted. Human shortcomings, not the caste issue, are to blame. Caste has no bearing on such an act.
• There is no assumption that members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may collectively abuse the legal provisions, nor do the higher castes or the privileged class turn to this. A person’s caste cannot be linked to a fake report they have submitted. Human shortcomings, not the caste issue, are to blame. Caste has no bearing on such an act.

JUDGMENT

The court came to the conclusion that an arrest of a member of the public cannot be carried out without the hiring authority’s written approval unless there is another criminal that is expressly defined as an arrestable offense in lieu of those mentioned under the Atrocities Act. It was additionally specified that, in the event that the person being arrested is not a public servant, they cannot be held in custody without written authorization from the Senior Superintendent of Police for the District, provided that they receive a copy of the authorization and the justification for it before to court. 

It was said that the magistrate should only allow such detention if the charges are shown to be true, and that when the arrested individual is presented before him or her, the magistrate must take into account the documented justifications. It was decided that a preliminary investigation may be carried out to ascertain whether the circumstance is covered by the Atrocities Act in order to prevent false complaints and FIRs. Making sure the complaint is genuine and not a hoax is the main objective of this. The court concluded that the proceedings against the appellant had to be quashed since the complainant had no foundation for such an accusation. This ruling made it clear that the Atrocities Act could not be applied because only lawsuits were being filed.

Due process was highlighted by the court. It was noted that everyone has the right to the presumption of innocence. When someone is deprived of their freedom without being given the chance to be heard, there cannot be a presumption of guilt. The accused is entitled to demonstrate to the court that the complainant’s case was motivated if he anticipates being arrested, according to Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (Noor Aga v. State of Punjab 2008 16 SCC 417). The court used this case to support its position. The legislature did not intend for innocent people to be accused, the court noted. False complaints are being made to appease vested interests due to the widespread abuse of the Act’s provisions.

CONCLUSION 

The court created safeguards against false accusations in response to its argument that the Act’s provisions might be abused. However, discrimination and oppression against the disadvantaged and marginalized segments of society persist to this day. Because of this, the court reversed the decision in its review petition, and the Central Government The Dalits endure prejudice because of their limited financial means and poorer social ties, yet those who work for the government cannot be said to be completely impoverished. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s viewpoint cannot be completely discounted. Therefore, it is a system for enhancing the social justice system and offering protection to individuals enduring the intricacies of institutions.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra in its review judgment, noting the sorry current situation of affairs for SCs and STs. The Supreme Court operated under the assumption that it was not permitted to violate the grave concept of the separation of powers. Moreover, it is not permissible to assume that the Act’s provisions have been abused. It cannot be claimed that a person’s caste is the reason they filed a fraudulent complaint. Members of the SC and ST have endured discrimination for a very long time. They must be provided with appropriate protection against this, and the law cannot put them in a disadvantageous situation. They barely have the guts to speak out against the injustices that the higher caste inflicts upon them. This is the only explanation for why the amendment’s advantageous provisions were added to the Act.