Case Note & Summary
The Union of India filed a review petition against the Supreme Court's judgment dated 20.3.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.416 of 2018, which had issued guidelines concerning the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The original judgment held that there is no absolute bar against anticipatory bail under the Act if no prima facie case is made out or the complaint is mala fide, and directed that arrest of a public servant requires approval of the appointing authority, and of a non-public servant requires approval by the SSP, with reasons to be scrutinized by the Magistrate. It also directed a preliminary enquiry by the DSP to verify allegations. The Union of India contended that these directions amounted to impermissible judicial legislation, undermining the object of the Act to protect vulnerable communities. The Court examined the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the preamble, and Section 18 of the Act, which bars anticipatory bail. It noted that the Act was amended in 2015 to strengthen protections. The Court considered submissions that low conviction rates were due to procedural delays, not misuse of the law. The review petition argued that the directions frustrated Rule 7 of the 1995 Rules requiring completion of investigation within 30 days. The Court held that while it can issue directions to enforce fundamental rights, it cannot legislate by adding conditions not found in the statute. The directions on preliminary enquiry and approval for arrest were found to be legislative in nature and beyond the court's power under Article 142. However, the direction on anticipatory bail was consistent with existing law and did not require review. The Court allowed the review petition in part, setting aside the directions in clauses (iii) and (iv) of paragraph 83 of the original judgment, while upholding clause (ii) regarding anticipatory bail.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Review Jurisdiction - Scope of review under Article 137 of the Constitution of India - The Court examined whether its earlier directions in paragraph 83 of the judgment dated 20.3.2018, which mandated preliminary enquiry and approval for arrest under the SC/ST Act, constituted impermissible legislation. Held that the directions were legislative in nature and beyond the court's power, as they effectively amended the statute without striking it down. (Paras 1-5) B) Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 18 - Bar on Anticipatory Bail - The Court had earlier held that anticipatory bail is not absolutely barred if no prima facie case is made out or the complaint is mala fide. The review petition challenged this as diluting the statutory bar. Held that the direction on anticipatory bail was consistent with earlier judgments and did not require review. (Paras 2, 5) C) Criminal Procedure - Arrest - Preliminary Enquiry and Approval - Requirement of preliminary enquiry by DSP and approval by appointing authority/SSP before arrest under the SC/ST Act - The Court had issued these directions to prevent misuse. Held that these directions were legislative in character and could not be sustained, as they added conditions not found in the statute. The directions were set aside. (Paras 3, 15-16) D) Constitutional Law - Separation of Powers - Judicial Legislation - Power of Supreme Court under Article 142 - The Court considered whether directions that effectively amend a statute are permissible. Held that while the court can fill gaps, it cannot rewrite clear legislative provisions. The impugned directions went beyond permissible limits. (Paras 12, 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the original judgment regarding preliminary enquiry, approval for arrest, and anticipatory bail under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 amount to impermissible judicial legislation and warrant review.
Final Decision
The review petition is allowed in part. The directions in clauses (iii) and (iv) of paragraph 83 of the judgment dated 20.3.2018 (requiring approval for arrest and preliminary enquiry) are set aside as they amount to impermissible judicial legislation. The direction in clause (ii) regarding anticipatory bail (no absolute bar) is upheld as consistent with law.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- Legislative power vs judicial direction
- Article 142 limitations
- Section 18 SC/ST Act bar on anticipatory bail
- Preliminary enquiry requirement
- Approval for arrest requirement
