CASE NAME – PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appellant : Prathvi Raj Chauhan
Respondent: Union of India and others
Date of Judgement: 10 February,2020
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Vineet Saran, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Citation: Writ Petition (C) NO.1015 of 2018
The case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India centered on the constitutional validity of Section 18-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018. This amendment was introduced to nullify certain safeguards established by the Supreme Court in the 2018 Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra judgment, which aimed to prevent the misuse of the SC/ST Act.
INTRODUCTION
The Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) case is a critical moment in Indian jurisprudence, addressing the intersection of safeguarding vulnerable communities and preventing legal misuse. The case centered on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), which was enacted to curb systemic atrocities against marginalized communities. In 2018, the Supreme Court, through its ruling in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, introduced certain procedural safeguards to prevent alleged misuse of the Act. These included provisions for anticipatory bail and mandatory preliminary inquiries before FIR registration. However, these measures faced backlash from SC/ST communities and civil society for diluting the original intent of the Act.
Responding to the protests, the Parliament introduced Section 18-A through an amendment in 2018, which nullified the safeguards. The Prithvi Raj Chauhan case arose from a challenge to the constitutionality of this amendment. It brought into focus key questions about legislative intent, judicial overreach, and the balance between protecting the rights of marginalized communities and safeguarding individuals from false allegations.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
- Background of the SC/ST Act, 1989:
The SC/ST Act was designed to address historical injustices and systemic oppression faced by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Its stringent provisions included disallowing anticipatory bail and mandating swift action against perpetrators.
- 2018 Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Judgment:
The Supreme Court, in this case, sought to prevent misuse of the SC/ST Act by introducing safeguards:
- Mandatory preliminary inquiry before an FIR could be filed.
- Exclusion of automatic arrests.
- Allowance for anticipatory bail in certain cases, despite the Act’s provisions.
These changes were perceived as weakening the Act, sparking widespread protests.
- SC/ST Amendment Act, 2018:
Parliament passed the amendment to restore the original provisions of the SC/ST Act. Section 18-A:
- Removed the requirement for preliminary inquiries before FIR registration.
- Barred anticipatory bail for individuals accused under the Act.
- Challenge to the Amendment:
Petitions filed in the Supreme Court questioned the constitutionality of Section 18-A, arguing that it violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
ISSUES RAISED
The case brought forth the following legal and constitutional issues:
- Whether the amendment to the SC/ST Act under Section 18-A violated fundamental rights, particularly the right to equality (Article 14) and the right to personal liberty (Article 21).
- Whether the amendment struck a fair balance between preventing misuse of the law and ensuring justice for SC/ST victims of atrocities.
- Whether the Parliament’s amendment effectively overruled judicial directions, undermining judicial independence.
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED:
Petitioners’ Arguments:
- Violation of Fundamental Rights:
The petitioners argued that an absolute bar on anticipatory bail and the removal of preliminary inquiries made the law arbitrary and discriminatory. They claimed these provisions violated Articles 14 and 21 by presuming guilt without due process.
They emphasized that the law, without procedural safeguards, could lead to false allegations and harassment, causing irreparable damage to reputations and careers.
- Judicial Precedent Ignored:
The petitioners contended that the amendment disregarded the safeguards introduced in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan. They viewed this as undermining judicial independence and the principle of checks and balances.
- Disproportionate Provisions:
They claimed the blanket denial of anticipatory bail, even in frivolous cases, was excessive and did not align with the principles of natural justice.
Respondents’ Arguments (Union of India):
- Protection of Marginalized Communities:
- The Union of India argued that the amendment was necessary to restore the original intent of the SC/ST Act. It emphasized the Act’s role in deterring caste-based atrocities, which continue to persist.
- Legislative Competence:
The respondents defended Parliament’s authority to amend laws to address societal needs. They asserted that the amendment upheld the constitutional mandate to protect weaker sections of society.
They argued that instances of misuse of the SC/ST Act were exaggerated. The amendment was essential to ensure justice for victims of caste-based violence.
- Judicial Powers Remain Intact:
The government clarified that anticipatory bail was not entirely barred. Courts retained the discretion to grant bail under exceptional circumstances if a prima facie case of abuse of process was established.
JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 18-A of the SC/ST Amendment Act, 2018. The key takeaways from the judgment are:
- No Absolute Bar on Anticipatory Bail:
While Section 18-A restricts anticipatory bail, the Court clarified that this was not an absolute bar. Courts could still grant anticipatory bail in cases where a prima facie case of an offense was not established or where the allegations appeared motivated.
- Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory:
The Court ruled that the police were not obligated to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR. However, in cases where the complaint was prima facie frivolous, police officers could exercise discretion to conduct an inquiry.
- Legislative Intent Affirmed:
The Court acknowledged Parliament’s authority to amend the law to protect vulnerable communities. It held that the amendment was neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional and served a legitimate legislative purpose.
- Balancing Competing Interests:
The judgment struck a balance between protecting SC/ST communities from atrocities and preventing misuse of the law. It ensured that innocent individuals were not victimized while preserving the deterrent effect of the Act.
SUMMARY
The case of Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) dealt with the constitutional validity of Section 18-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018. This amendment was introduced to restore the stringent provisions of the original SC/ST Act, 1989, after the Supreme Court, in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018), diluted certain provisions to prevent alleged misuse. The amendments nullified safeguards such as mandatory preliminary inquiries before filing an FIR and allowed anticipatory bail in cases under the Act. The backlash against the 2018 judgment, particularly from SC/ST communities, prompted Parliament to amend the Act to reinforce its protective intent.
The petitioners challenged Section 18-A on the grounds that it violated Articles 14 (equality before the law), 19 (freedom of speech), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. They argued that the removal of procedural safeguards, such as preliminary inquiries and the bar on anticipatory bail, would lead to misuse of the law and result in false accusations. They also contended that the 2018 amendment effectively overruled the judicial directions provided in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, thereby undermining judicial independence and due process.
The Union of India defended the amendment, emphasizing the need to protect SC/ST communities from atrocities. The respondents argued that caste-based discrimination and violence remained pervasive in society, necessitating strong legislative measures. They also contended that misuse of the SC/ST Act was not as widespread as claimed and that the amendment aimed to deter atrocities without arbitrarily targeting innocent individuals.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 18-A. The Court ruled that while the Act restricted anticipatory bail, it did not impose an absolute bar. Courts could grant anticipatory bail in exceptional cases where there was no prima facie evidence or where the complaint appeared motivated. Similarly, the Court held that preliminary inquiries were not mandatory but could be conducted by police officers in cases where allegations seemed frivolous.
The Court affirmed the legislative Intent behind the amendment, acknowledging the ongoing need to protect vulnerable communities from systemic oppression. However, it struck a balance by allowing judicial discretion to prevent the misuse of the law. The judgment underscored the importance of harmonizing the rights of SC/ST victims with those of the accused, ensuring justice for all parties.
The Prithvi Raj Chauhan judgment reflects a nuanced approach to addressing competing interests in a socially stratified society. By upholding the amendment, the Court reinforced the legislature’s commitment to safeguarding marginalized communities while maintaining judicial safeguards to prevent false accusations. The case highlights the judiciary’s role in adapting the law to evolving social realities and preserving the balance between justice, equality, and individual rights.
CONCLUSION
The Prithvi Raj Chauhan judgment reflects the complexities of addressing systemic inequalities while safeguarding individual rights. By upholding the 2018 amendment to the SC/ST Act, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the legislature’s commitment to protecting marginalized communities from caste-based discrimination and violence.
At the same time, the Court maintained a nuanced stance by allowing anticipatory bail in exceptional cases and recognizing the need for discretionary inquiries. This approach demonstrates the judiciary’s role in harmonizing conflicting interests—ensuring justice for victims while preventing the abuse of legal provisions.
The case also highlights the broader socio-legal challenges in India, where the law must address historical injustices without compromising procedural fairness. The judgment serves as a testament to the dynamic nature of India’s constitutional framework, where judicial and legislative actions coexist to uphold the principles of justice, equality, and liberty.
By reaffirming the balance between legislative intent and judicial oversight, the Prithvi Raj Chauhan case reinforces the judiciary’s responsibility to adapt the law to changing societal contexts while safeguarding the rights of all citizens.
REFERENCES:
- SCC 2020 VOLUME 4
- https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=anticipatory%20bail
- https://www.jyotijudiciary.com/the-case-of-prithvi-raj-chauhan-v-union-of-india-2020/
- https://legal-wires.com/case-study/case-study-prathvi-raj-chauhan-v-union-of-india-ors/
- https://www.mylawman.co.in/2022/07/case-brief-prithvi-raj-chauhan-v-union.html
Written by- Ritika Tokas
BA.LLB. 3rd year
Bhagat Phool Singh Women University