NEW DELHI: Days after the
Supreme Court delivered the verdict by which the provision of anticipatory bail was introduced in the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, a tribal from Gujarat contended before the apex court on Monday that the judgment was wrong, being in contradiction with its earlier ruling given by a bench of same strength.
Appearing before a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, senior advocate Dushyant Dave said the verdict delivered by a division bench on March 20 was wrong and per incuriam (lack of due regard to law) as it was contrary to earlier rulings of the apex court by division benches including the judgement delivered in Manju Devi case in March last year. He pleaded the bench to re-examine the verdict.
It came on a day when
Lok Janshakti Party MP Chirag Paswan said his party has filed a petition in the Supreme Court against its order on the Act. He said he had also written a letter to Prime Minister
Narendra Modi urging the Centre to file a review petition since the order made the law “toothless”.
Appearing for the petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, Dave challenged the Gujarat High Court’s verdict granting anticipatory bail to two accused builders on the basis of the SC’s recent verdict. In a first case of application of the apex court’s verdict, the Gujarat HC on March 22 granted anticipatory bail to the accused who were booked under the
Atrocities Act on a complaint filed by the petitioner for fraudulently taking away his land.
“Section 18 of the Atrocities Act cannot be diluted on the ground of abuse of law. The Supreme Court verdict has virtually re-written the provision and it overlooked another judgement delivered in March last year in Manju Devi case in which it was held that the mala fide behind FIR can be examined only at the trial stage and not while deciding anticipatory bail plea,” he said.
“The division bench should have referred the issue to a larger bench. The court should suspend the verdict. It is a very serious issue and is creating a disturbing debate in the country. The judgement is wrong and per incuriam,” he said. Dave sought a stay on the judgement as the HCs and lower courts would follow the verdict, which would have huge implications.
Agreeing to hear the appeal, the bench, however, refused to stay the verdict and sought response from the Gujarat government.
Expressing concern over rampant misuse of the Act, the Supreme Court last week ruled that anticipatory bail should be granted in cases which were prima facie false, while also directing that there would be no automatic arrest on any complaint filed under the Act and a preliminary inquiry must be conducted by police within seven days before taking any action. The court said such a protective provision was required to safeguard the interest and dignity of innocents and prevent the misuse of the Act as an instrument to blackmail or wreak personal vengeance.
