Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India - Synopsis
Ahir Mitra 27 May 2021

Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India.

(2020) 4 SCC 727

The petitioners, in this case, challenged the constitutional validity of section 18-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018. The petition was filed on the grounds that section 18-A of the Act renders the verdict of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra &anr[1]. null and void. The court found that the Prevention of Atrocities Act's provisions had been abused.

In the Kashinath Mahajan case, the court established various safeguards, but these safeguards were reversed by the parliament through an amendment to the Act. In this case, the safeguards were, regardless of any decision, ruling, or directive of any court, the accused is granted anticipatory bail. Kashinath Mahajan's impact has been diluted as a result of this modification. The Kashinath Mahajan Judgement was enacted in order to prevent anyone from exploiting the Act. Following the passage of Kashinath Mahajan, the parliament made steps to overturn the ruling, citing the fact that it has resulted in widespread violence and protest by Dalits and Adivasis, and introduced an amendment bill in parliament.

The Supreme Court of India has received a review petition contesting the Kashinath Mahajan decision. The legislature has not even awaited the court's decision on a review petition contesting the judgment. The central government filed an affidavit in response to the notice, stating that the legislature has the authority to make amendments through the process of a large number of acquittal cases under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act) does not suggest that the cases are fake.

The 2018 Amendment has been challenged in several petitions. The review petition was referred to a three-judge bench on September 13, 2019, by a division bench consisting of Arun Mishra and UU Lalit. The court upheld the constitutional legality of the 2018 Amendment following a hearing before a three-judge bench. The court found that the instructions issued in the Kashinath Mahajan case imposed an undue hardship on Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe individuals.

When it came to section 18-A of the Act, the court stated that when looking at the provision of section 18 with regard to preliminary investigation before the filing a FIR, the inquiry is acceptable only under the conditions set forth in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P.[2] In addition, the court ruled that no anticipatory bail should be granted for offenses under the SC/ST Amendment Act. Justice Ravindra Bhat, in a concurring decision, stated that anticipatory bail should only be granted in rare circumstances and not in every instance. The court had previously stated that anticipatory bail can only be granted if no prima facie case exists under the SC/SCT Act.

While giving his verdict, Justice Ravindra Bhat, also mentioned fair treatment for all people and the need of nurturing the concept of fraternity, stating that the concept of fraternity is just as vital as a person's personal liberty. If the accused is a public servant, the arrest can only be made with the approval of the appointing authority, while if the accused is a non-public servant, the arrest can only be made with the permission of the Senior Superintended of Police.



[1] (2018) 6 SCC 454.

[2] (2014) 2 SCC 1.

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com