Supreme Court protects public servants from automatic arrest in false SC/ST cases

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday barred the automatic registration of FIR and arrest on a complaint under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, citing its rampant misuse in the last three decades.

A Bench of Justices Adarsh K Goel and Uday U Lalit has listed safeguards, making it mandatory for the police to conduct a preliminary inquiry, not exceeding a week, to decide whether an FIR should be registered. Even if an FIR is registered, the accused will not be arrested automatically, the court said, stressing that the arrest is not at all mandatory in cases under the SC/ST Act as “there is need to safeguard innocent citizens against false implication and unnecessary arrest.”

It said the Act was enacted with the objective that the underprivileged need protection against any atrocities to give effect to the Constitutional ideals, but “the Act cannot be converted into a charter for exploitation or oppression by any unscrupulous person or by police for extraneous reasons against other citizens.” The Bench said the court has to step in to ensure the constitutional guarantee against the harassment of an innocent citizen, irrespective of caste or religion.

“Liberty of one citizen cannot be placed at the whim of another. Law has to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Thus considered, exclusion has to be applied to genuine cases and not to false ones. This will help in achieving the object of the law,” the court said. Innocent citizens are termed as accused, which is not intended by the legislature, it said, stressing that the legislature never intended to use the Atrocities Act as an instrument to blackmail or to wreak personal vengeance.

The court also put on record reasons why it had to step in: “We have already noted the working of the Act in the last three decades. It has been judicially acknowledged that there are instances of abuse of the Act by vested interests against political opponents in Panchayat, Municipal or other elections, to settle private civil disputes arising out of property, monetary disputes, employment disputes and seniority disputes. It may be noticed that by way of rampant misuse complaints are largely being filed particularly against Public Servants/quasi judicial/judicial officers with oblique motive for satisfaction of vested interests.”

As regards the arrest of a government servant under the Act, the court laid down that a preliminary probe by an officer not below the rank of deputy superintendent is a must and that too after prior approval of the competent authority. For arrest of anybody else, written permission of the Senior Superintendent of Police or DSP will be necessary and further “such permission must be granted for recorded reasons which must be served on the person to be arrested and the concerned court, which will examine if further detention is required.

Interpreting Section 18 of the Act, the court ruled that there is no absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail in such cases, as the person is entitled to get a pre-arrest bail if it can be prima facie shown that the allegations are false, fabricated and motivated. Asserting that the Atrocities Act should promote constitutional values of fraternity and integration of the society, the court held: “This may require check on false implications of innocent citizens on caste lines. It is necessary to express concern that working of the Atrocities Act should not result in perpetuating casteism which can have an adverse impact on integration of the society and the constitutional values.”