IRAC CASE ANALYSIS OF

PRATHVIRAJ CHAUHAN V. UNION OF INDIA

Facts

The constitutional validity of section 18-A of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, introduced by the 2018 Amendment to the Act was
challenged by the petitioners in the pertinent case. The petitioners contended misuse of act
and violation of article 21 of the fundamental rights. In the case of Subhash Kashinath
Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra & anr1 the Supreme Court with the intent of preventing
the people from abusing the act had introduced these safeguards:

1. Conduct of preliminary inquiry before registration of First Information Report

2. Investigating officer should receive approval before arrest.
3. Anticipatory bail to accused, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of
any court.
A review petition challenging the judgment was filed before the Supreme Court of India. But
withstanding the review petition the parliament of the country took steps to overturn the
verdict, citing the fact that it has resulted in widespread violence and agitation among Dalits
and Adivasis, and introduced an amendment bill in parliament. So the government had
inserted section 18A to override protections established by the Supreme Court in the
Kashinath Mahajan decision. These provisions were introduced according to the amendment:
1. Preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of FIR against any person
2. Investigating officer shall not require approval for the arrest of any person under the
act.
3. Provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) dealing with
anticipatory bail shall not apply to a case under the SC/ST Act.

So the three safeguards established by the judgment were nullified by Section 18A. Supreme
court issued notice to the central government on 7th September, 2018 to submit its response to
the petition. In reaction, the central government filed an affidavit claiming that the Parliament
has the authority to amend the Act. The affidavit further states that high acquittal rates in
1
Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra &anr (2018) 6 SCC 454
cases brought under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be used to infer that the
bulk of the cases filed under it are fraudulent.
The review petition filed by Prathviraj Chuahan pointed out that the amendment to the said
act had diluted the effect of the case. On 24th of January 2019, the Court clubbed the petitions
challenging the 2018 Amendment together with the review petitions. Later the review
petition was referred by division bench comprising Arun Mishra and UU Lalit to three-judge
bench. On the 10th of February 2020, the Court formally upheld the constitutionality of the
2018 Amendment. On behalf of himself and Justice Vineet Saran, Justice Arun Mishra
penned the majority opinion. A concurring opinion was written by Justice S.R. Bhat.

Issue

The issues framed by the Supreme Court of India

 Is Section 18A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2018 constitutional?
 Is the prohibition on anticipatory bail valid and does it infringes on a person's
personal liberty under Article 21 and right of equality before law under Article 14 of
the constitution?

Rule

 Article 14 of the Indian Constitution - From within India's territories, the state shall
not deny anybody equality before the law or equal treatment under the law.
Discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth is prohibited.
 Article 15 of the Indian Constitution – It prohibits discrimination on grounds of
religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. i.e., No citizen shall, on grounds only of
religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability,
liability or restriction. But nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making
any special provision for women and children and also provision for the advancement
of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
  Article 17 of the Indian Constitution - Untouchability is abolished, and any type of it
is prohibited. The imposition of any disability resulting from untouchability is a
criminal offense punishable by law
 Article 21 of the Indian Constitution - No one's life or personal liberty may be taken
away from them unless under proper legal procedure.
 Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - It specifies the circumstances in
which any police officer can arrest someone without a Magistrate's order or a warrant.
 Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Police officer' s power to
investigate cognizable case.
 Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Circumstances in which
judges or public servants can be arrested.
 Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – It specifies conditions
direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.

Contentions of both the sides

While the petitioners argued that the provisions implemented in Dr. Subhash Kashinath
Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra & anr were required because the act had been widely
misused, and that the absolute ban on granting anticipatory bail would violate the
constitutional right to personal liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution. They
also argued that there should not have been any restriction on the freedom to get anticipatory
bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Prior examination and investigation
are required. To deter undue discrimination, the Act of 1989 established much of the
protections. The clause of section 66A of the Information Technology Act was struck down
by this Court because it violated human rights; similarly, the provisions of section 18A of the
Act of 1989 deserve to be struck down.

On behalf of the Central Government, Attorney General KK Venugopal contended that the

amendment was made due to a large number of acquittal cases, police failure to properly
implement the act, and accused prosecution was also ineffective, and petitioners counsel
also argued that the amendment is consistent with the act's aim of protecting the SC/ST
section of society.
Ratio

The court on analysing the issue of constitutionality of article 18a being inserted into the
Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 first took note of
the contention of the petitioner that the amendment was made in light of the Subhash
Kashinath’s case (especially direction no iii to v). But the court pointed out that this was not
the situation as the judgement passed on review petition had already recalled the said
directions. The directions number iii to v are as follows:

 The arrest may be in an appropriate case if considered necessary for reasons to be

recorded;

 Reasons for arrest must be scrutinized by the Magistrate for permitting further
detention;

 Preliminary enquiry to be conducted by the Dy. S.P. level officers to find out whether
the allegations make out a case and that the allegations are not frivolous or motivated.

The court mentioned that the protective guidelines envisaged in the Article 15 of the
constitution and the provisions of the Act of 1989 to make them equals. It also mentioned that
SCs/STs are still making the struggle for equality and for exercising civil rights in various
areas of the country. The court reiterated that that the right to life is not merely an animal's
existence and Under Article 21, the right to life includes the right to live with dignity Basic
human dignity entails that all people be regarded as decent human beings in any way, rather
than as untouchables, exploited, and objects of exploitation. The court cited the case of
Khadak Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh2 which mentioned the same. As the Court had
noted in Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh 3, Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar
Pradesh4, and Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India 5, a good reputation is an integral aspect
of a citizen's right to life under Article 21. The clauses of Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution guarantee equality before the law. Making any special provision for the
promotion of any socially and educationally deprived groups of people, or SCs and STs, is
accepted under Article15 (4) of the Constitution. As a result, the Act of 1989 was passed, and

2
Khadak Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295
3
Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 10 SCC 591
4
Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 2 SCC 398
5
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221
its rules were also revised in 2016 to make them more meaningful. Special lawyers will be
assigned to trials in order to expedite the process. Incentives are also available for victim
recovery, witness protection, and other related matters. There is no assumption that members
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will abuse the legal requirements as a class,
and it is not used by members of the upper Castes or the elite class. It cannot be assumed if a
person's caste is the reason for filing a false report.

 The court observed that obtaining permission from a higher authority to apprehend an
accused in an atrocities case would not be practicable because it would mean that an upper-
caste report is to be filed immediately and an arrest to be made immediately, while in the case
of an offence under the Act of 1989, it would be conditional. As this will be contrary to the
constitutionally mandated protections for members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes, as outlined in Articles 15, 17 and 21 the guideline iv of article 18a would continue to
exist.

In regard to not providing anticipatory bail (Article 438 of CrPC) to the accused in an SC/ST
atrocities case, the court noted that adequate protection has been provided to prevent the
misuse of the said act. It used the judgement of M.P. v. R.K. Balothia 6, to state that non-
availability of aniticipatory bail cannot be considered to be a violation of the article 14
mentioned in the constitution as the offences enumerated under the said Act fall into a
separate and special class. Also looking to the historical background relating to the practice
of "Untouchability" and the social attitudes which lead to the commission of such offences
against SC and ST, there is justification for an apprehension that if the benefit of anticipatory
bail is made available to the persons who are alleged to have committed such offences, there
is every likelihood of their misusing their liberty while on anticipatory bail to terrorise their
victims and to prevent a proper investigation. It is in this context that Section 18 has been
incorporated in the said Act. So, it cannot be considered to be in any manner violative
of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Dilating the issue regarding requirement of FIR, the court mentioned the National
Commission for Scheduled Castes Annual Report 2015-16, which had recommended for that
when faced with atrocity incidents, both the police and the civil government must register
FIRs as quick as practicable.Also regarding the contention of the petitioner that 9-10% of the
case registered under the said act was fake, the learned Attorney General pointed out that the
proportion of false cases involving other general offenses such as forgery is similar, and that
6
State of M.P. v. R.K. Balothia, (1995) 3 SCC 221
the same can be handled by the courts under Section482, and that if no prima facie case is
established, the Court can still consider grant of anticipatory bail and quashing power in
appropriate cases.

Analysis

In light of the present social conditions and the atrocities caused to the marginalized
communities, the Supreme court’s decision to uphold the constitutionality of Section 18-A of
the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 is a welcome
move. The judgement has tried to hold onto the constitutional value of protecting them and
ensuring their welfare. The guidelines under section 18a while being rigid are important for
ensuring that the marginalized have a venue of redressal. But as the dissenting opinion of
Justice S.R.Bhatt mentioned the idea of fraternity is a concept that is crucial to the nations
consciousness and polity and it is underdeveloped in the present scenario. It is fraternity,
which is poignantly enshrined in Part III, that ensures true equality, where the state treats all
citizens equally, ensures the benefits of development and stability to all, with equal liberty for
all, and, most importantly, guarantees that every citizen treats every other citizen equally. The
act while protecting the rights of the marginalized fails to make them inclusive in the social
structure of the nation instead they are made to stand out.

I feel that although the act provides for stringent actions against perpetrators of atrocities
against sc and st the law enforcement part still remains lackadaisical. The Report on the
Prevention of Atrocities against Scheduled Castes vividly described that despite the
enactment of stringent penal measures, barbarity against scheduled caste and scheduled tribe
communities continued. So in order to ensure the proper welfare of the community, what is
needed is proper law enforcement and like Justice S.R Bhatt has noted in his judgement
‘unless provisions of the Act are enforced in their true letter and spirit, with utmost
earnestness and dispatch, the dream and ideal of a casteless society will remain only a dream,
a mirage.’
Conclusion

The plaintiffs prayer to declare the section 18-A of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, introduced by the 2018 Amendment to the Act as
constitutionally invalid was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court Of India. The bench
in a majority of 2:1 upheld the constitutional validity of the said act.