NDLI: Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (30 of 1999) Unlawful Activities (prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19 Referred Case 20 Referred Case 21 Referred Case 22 Referred Case 23 Referred Case 24 Referred Case 25 Referred Case 26 Referred Case 27 Referred Case 28 Referred Case 29 Referred Case 30 Referred Case 31 Referred Case 32 Referred Case 33 Referred Case 34 Referred Case 35 Referred Case 36 Referred Case 37 Referred Case 38 Referred Case 39
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.18 – Exclusion of anticipatory bail, in cases of false implications – Procedural safeguards – Respondent no.2-complainant, a govt. employee belonging to Scheduled Caste, lodged FIR in 2006 against his two senior officers (non-Scheduled Caste) when they made adverse entry in his Annual Confidential Report – Sanction to proceed against the said two senior officers, refused by appellant in 2011 – Present FIR lodged by respondent no.2 against the appellant in 2016 – Appellant sought quashing of proceedings, which was rejected by High Court – Held: 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 – Exclusion of anticipatory bail is justified only to protect victims of perpetrators of crime in genuine cases– It cannot be made applicable to those who are falsely implicated for extraneous reasons – To avoid false implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted by the DSP concerned to find out whether the allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act and that the allegations are not frivolous or motivated – Arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by the S.S.P. which may be granted in appropriate cases if considered necessary for reasons recorded – Such reasons must be scrutinized by Magistrate for permitting further detention – In the instant case, the proceedings against appellant are clear abuse of process of court and are quashed – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 and ss.482, 41, 41A, 197 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.182, 192, 193, 203 and s.219 r/w s.34 – Constitution of India – Arts.14, 15, 16 and 21 – The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 – r.12(4) – Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 – Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 – s.17(4), (5) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – ss.43D(4), (5) – Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 – ss.21(3), (4) – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.41, 41A – Power of arrest – Held: Enforcement of a legislation has to be consistent with the fundamental rights – Power of arrest is to be exercised with caution – Mere unilateral allegation by any individual belonging to any caste, when such allegation is clearly motivated and false, cannot deprive a person of his liberty without an independent scrutiny – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Interpretation of Statutes – Literal interpretation vis-à-vis purposive interpretation – Held: A statute is to be read in the context of the background and its object – Exclusion of provision for anticipatory bail cannot possibly, by any reasonable interpretation, be treated as applicable when no case is made out or allegations are patently false or motivated – Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of proportionality. Criminal Trial – Presumption of innocence – Held: Presumption of innocence is a human right – Placing of burden of proof on accused in certain circumstances may be permissible but there cannot be presumption of guilt so as to deprive a person of his liberty – Protection of innocent is as important as punishing the guilty – Human rights. Constitution of India – Powers/Role of Supreme Court to issue appropriate orders or directions for enforcement of fundamental rights – Held: Role of Supreme Court travels beyond merely dispute settling and directions can be issued which are not directly in conflict with a valid statute – Power to declare law carries with it, within the limits of duty, to make law when none exists. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Purpose and object of – Discussed.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
Neutral Citation	2018 INSC 248
Petitioner	Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan
Respondent	The State Of Maharashtra And Anr.
SCR	[2018] 4 S.C.R. 877
Judgement Date	2018-03-20
Case Number	416

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Kerala and Anr Vs. Chandramohanan

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

State of M.p. and Anr. Vs. Ram Kishna Balothia and Anr.

Sonu Kumar Vs. State of H.p.

Bachu Das Vs. State of Bihar and Others

अनुसूचित जाति और अनुसूचित जनजाति (अत्यातचार निवारण) अधिनियम,1989

The SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State Through Standing Counsel & Anr.

Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Kerala and Anr Vs. Chandramohanan

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

State of M.p. and Anr. Vs. Ram Kishna Balothia and Anr.

Sonu Kumar Vs. State of H.p.

Bachu Das Vs. State of Bihar and Others

अनुसूचित जाति और अनुसूचित जनजाति (अत्यातचार निवारण) अधिनियम,1989

The SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State Through Standing Counsel & Anr.

Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.