The court ruled that the law is widely abused to disrupt the discharge of public duties and am immediate arrest could be violative of he constitutional provisions.New Delhi: In a bid to protect honest public servants discharging bonafide duties from being blackmailed with false cases under the SC/ST Act, the Supreme Court today diluted its stringent provisions mandating immediate arrest under the law.
The top court said that on "several occasions", innocent citizens were being termed as accused and public servants deterred from performing their duties, which was never the intention of the legislature while enacting the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
"There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where, on judicial scrutiny, the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide," the presiding bench said.
It also said that the 'arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by the senior superintendent of police (SSP) which may be granted in appropriate cases if considered necessary for reasons recorded,' adding that the reasons recorded must be scrutinised by the magistrate for permitting further detention.
The top court said that in doing so, it was not "diluting the efficacy of Section 18 of SC/ST Act in deserving cases where court finds a case to be prima facie genuine warranting custodial interrogation and pre-trial arrest and detention".
Section 18 of the Act bars grant of anticipatory bail to person booked under the provisions of the law.
Detailing its decision the court said, "any harassment of an innocent citizen, irrespective of caste or religion, is against the guarantee of the Constitution. This court must enforce such a guarantee. Law should not result in caste hatred. The preamble to the Constitution, which is the guiding star for interpretation, incorporates the values of liberty, equality and fraternity".
To avoid false implication of an innocent, the top court directed that a preliminary enquiry may be conducted by the DSP rank officer to find out whether the allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act and whether the allegations are not frivolous or motivated.
Warning that if the directions given by the court are not followed, it would warrant disciplinary action as well as contempt, the top court directed that its order will have prospective effect.
The major ruling came on a plea of one Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, who, while serving as the Director of Technical Education in Maharashtra government, was accused of refusing prosecution sanction against two senior officers of the department accused under SC/ST Act by one store keeper.
Mahajan challenged the order of May 5, 2017, of the Bombay High Court which had refused to grant him anticipatory bail in the case and quash the FIR.
