CASE NAME	Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761
CITATION	AIR 2019 SC 4917, AIRONLINE 2019 SC 1167, 2020 CRI LJ 65, (2019) 13 SCALE 280, (2019) 4 BOMCR(CRI) 322, (2019) 4 CRILR(RAJ)
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice Arun Mishra, Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice M.R. Shah
PETITIONER	Union of India
RESPONDENT	State of Maharashtra and Others
DECIDED ON	1st October 2019

INTRODUCTION

In the case of Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, the Supreme Court of India rendered a landmark ruling on October 1, 2019. In this case, the Court’s previous ruling in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018), which established procedural safeguards regarding arrests under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), was challenged in a review petition filed by the Union of India. 

The Supreme Court established guidelines in its 2018 ruling to stop the abuse of the SC/ST Act, which included requiring preliminary investigations prior to filing formal complaints and securing prior authorization before conducting an arrest. Following massive protests against these orders, the Parliament changed the SC/ST Act in 2018 to make the Court’s orders void. 

In its request for a review of the 2018 ruling, the Union of India said that the Court had overreached itself by enforcing rules that essentially weakened the SC/ST Act’s provisions, so jeopardizing the rights and safeguards granted to underprivileged groups. The Supreme Court restored the original intent and contents of the SC/ST Act, as reinforced by the 2018 legislative revisions, by recalling its previous directives in response to the concerns expressed. 

This ruling emphasizes the fine line that must be drawn between legislative intent to protect vulnerable groups from discrimination and atrocities and judicial interventions meant to prevent the abuse of protective legislation. The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of legislative authority in passing and revising laws to correct social inequalities by reiterating its earlier rulings.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Supreme Court’s previous ruling in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra (2018), which added procedural protections to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), gave rise to the case of Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra and Others. The 2018 ruling demanded prior clearance from senior police officials or appointing authorities for arrests and needed preliminary investigations prior to filing First Information Reports (FIRs) under the SC/ST Act. Though they were frequently criticized for weakening the Act’s protections, these directives sought to prevent abuse of the Act.

The SC/ST Act was amended by the Parliament in 2018 in reaction to public outcry, removing the procedural protections that the Court had established. The fundamental provisions of the Act were restored by these revisions, guaranteeing swift and severe punishment for legal infractions.

The Union of India challenged the 2018 ruling in a review petition, claiming the Court had overreached itself and infringed upon the rights of underrepresented groups. The petition said that judicial involvement should not weaken the SC/ST Act, which is an essential legislative instrument to safeguard disadvantaged communities. The case forced the Court to reevaluate its position, striking a balance between the need to protect underprivileged groups in society and worries about abuse.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the Court must strike down laws that violate fundamental rights or, in the event of a deficiency, point out to the legislature to correct them. This occurs when the Court does not accept the legislative and specific provisions of the law passed by the legislature, and only the legislature has the authority to amend those provisions.

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

• According to the argument, even the current provisions were deemed insufficient to accomplish the goal of providing equal justice to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes because of the ongoing atrocities committed against them, which showed an increase in offenses committed against them. As a result, the Act of 1989 was modified in April 2015 and went into effect on January 26, 2016.
• The Act of 1989, it is argued, was passed in order to eliminate the inequity of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, who are nonetheless marginalized and denied civil rights. 
• It is argued that in order to facilitate the speedy resolution of cases, provisions have also been made for the creation of exclusive Special Courts and the designation of Exclusive Special Public Prosecutors to try only offenses under the Act of 1989. Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts are able to take direct cognizance of offenses and, to the extent feasible, complete the trial within two months of the date the charge sheet was filed, as well as the addition of a chapter on the “Rights of Victims and Witnesses.”
• It is argued that the investigating officer has 30 days to finish the probe under Rule 7(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. Rule 7 will undoubtedly be violated if an FIR is not immediately filed, an arrest is not made, and the accused is not granted anticipatory bail.
• It is argued that this Court has failed to recognize that the low conviction rate and high acquittal rate under the Act of 1989 are related to a number of factors, including the delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR), the hostility of witnesses and complainants, the prosecution’s failure to properly review the cases before filing the charge sheet in court, the prosecution’s improper presentation of the case, and the Court’s lack of appreciation of the evidence. 

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

• There is no evidence of interference in the review jurisdiction, and it is argued that the directives are appropriate due to the abuse of the Atrocities Act’s legislative provisions.

JUDGMENT

The Court underlined the significance of defending the rights of vulnerable people while acknowledging the broad criticism of its previous ruling. The Court claimed that the 2018 ruling’s rules, which required preliminary investigations prior to filing a formal complaint and prior authorization for an arrest, had undermined the SC/ST Act’s legislative objective by diluting its provisions. According to this ruling, the judiciary cannot impede the legal framework that aims to rectify the historical injustices and social inequalities that Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes have experienced.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the power of Parliament in passing the 2018 modifications to the SC/ST Act, which revoked the procedural protections the Court had established and reinstated the original provisions. The Court underlined the need for strong implementation of the SC/ST Act to protect the rights of vulnerable populations from atrocities and upheld the legislative revisions by remembering its previous directives.

CONCLUSION

In addressing social inequities, the ruling in Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra and Others represents a critical turning point in striking a balance between legislative and judicial authority. Strict safeguards for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were intended by the SC/ST Act, which was passed in order to stop atrocities against them. In order to stop the abuse of the Act, the Court established procedural safeguards in its previous ruling in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan. However, because it unintentionally undermined the safeguards intended for underprivileged groups, this strategy sparked outrage and calls for legislative correction.

Parliament’s 2018 changes to the SC/ST Act reaffirmed the Act’s dedication to protecting disadvantaged communities by restoring its original provisions. These changes stressed the necessity of swift and stringent action under the Act and overturned the Supreme Court’s previous rulings. The Court essentially admitted that its involvement had crossed judicial lines and compromised the SC/ST Act’s legislative intent by recalling its 2018 ruling. This supports the idea of separation of powers and shows that the judiciary is prepared to change its direction in response to legitimate criticism.

Legally speaking, the case emphasizes the conflict between safeguarding protective laws from abuse and making sure their original intent is upheld. Although there are legitimate worries about fabricated cases under the SC/ST Act, the modifications and the ruling that followed make it clear that these worries cannot take precedence over the necessity of strong enforcement measures. The Court’s recognition of the legislative branch’s power to remedy social injustices emphasizes how important laws passed by the legislature are, particularly when it comes to issues of systemic and historical discrimination.

The ruling also calls into question the judiciary’s authority to interpret and even amend statutory provisions. Judicial intervention is essential for protecting rights, but it must be weighed against the aim of the legislature, especially when it comes to measures intended to redress systemic injustices. The Court underlined its commitment to upholding the equality and justice mandate of the Constitution by deferring to the modifications enacted by Parliament.

To sum up, this case serves as a reminder of the value of judicial discretion when enacting legislation to remedy social inequalities. The protections meant for vulnerable communities continue to be effective when the SC/ST Act’s provisions are restored through legislative and judicial processes. But it also emphasizes how important it is to remain vigilant in striking a balance between worries about abuse and the more general objective of attaining real equality and justice for underrepresented groups.