RIGHTS UNDER SC/ST ACT SHOULD NOT BE MISUSED: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT OBSERVATION
The Allahabad High Court has delivered an important order addressing the balance between the protection granted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) and the need to prevent its misuse. While granting bail to two accused in a rape case, the Court underscored that the Act’s victim-centric provisions must not be abused.
CASE BACKGROUND: NINE-YEAR DELAY IN FIR
In the case before the Allahabad High Court, Justice Anil Kumar heard the bail applications of two appellants, Aznan Khan and Furkan Ilahi, accused of rape and offences under the SC/ST Act.
The victim lodged an FIR in 2025 alleging offences that occurred in 2016. According to her statement, Furkan met her in 2016, took her to a hotel and then to the residence of co-accused Aznan Khan, where the alleged assault occurred. She stated that she remained silent for nearly nine years based on Furkan’s assurance that he would marry her.
She further alleged continued physical relations over the years and said that she was forced to terminate her pregnancy.
The Court noted the long and unexplained delay of nine years in filing the FIR, which significantly impacted the prosecution case for the purpose of bail.
COURT’S REASONING: GROUNDS FOR BAIL
Justice Anil Kumar granted bail after considering:
-
The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.
-
The nature of the allegations.
-
The available evidence on record.
-
The right of the accused to seek fair treatment at the bail stage.
The Court held that the facts of the case made the appellants entitled to bail.
IMPORTANT OBSERVATION ON SC/ST ACT RIGHTS
In a significant remark, the High Court cautioned against the misuse of rights provided under the SC/ST Act.
The Court noted:
“Before parting with this order, this Court would like to mention that opportunities and rights granted to victims under the SC/ST Act with an intention to afford the victim an opportunity to appear in each and every proceeding should not be misused and abused.”
This observation is notable because the SC/ST Act is a stringent legislation intended to protect vulnerable communities. However, courts have repeatedly emphasized that stringent laws must not become tools for harassment.
RELEVANT STATUTES INVOLVED
1. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Relevant provisions include:
-
Section 3: Prescribes offences punishable under the Act, including atrocities committed against SC/ST individuals.
-
Section 18 & 18A: Bar anticipatory bail in cases under the Act.
-
Victim Rights Provisions: The Act grants victims the right to participate in proceedings, receive protection, and be informed of case developments.
2. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Applicable sections include those relating to:
-
Rape
-
Outraging modesty
-
Criminal intimidation (as alleged through pressure to remain silent)
3. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
-
Section 439: Governs regular bail before High Courts and Sessions Courts.
-
Provisions relating to FIR, delays, and evidentiary considerations at the bail stage.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Covers:
-
Right to fair investigation
-
Rights of the accused to fair trial
-
Balancing of victim rights and accused rights
Article 14 – Equality Before Law
Courts ensure that special protections do not extinguish principles of equality and fairness.
Article 15(4) and 46 – Protection of SC/ST Communities
The SC/ST Act derives its constitutional foundation from provisions enabling special protections for marginalised groups.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE
1. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018)
The Supreme Court held that the SC/ST Act, though stringent, must not be misused and courts can prevent harassment of innocent persons. Later modified by Parliament through Section 18A, but principles on fairness remain relevant.
2. Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020)
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 18A, but clarified that courts may still grant anticipatory bail in exceptional cases to prevent miscarriage of justice.
3. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014)
Guidelines on FIR registration and delays. Delay in lodging FIR affects credibility depending on circumstances.
4. State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao (2008)
The Supreme Court held that unexplained delay in FIR can weaken the prosecution case.
5. Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019)
The Supreme Court reiterated that misuse of the SC/ST Act cannot be ignored and courts must balance rights.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT’S OBSERVATION
The Court’s statement serves as a reminder that:
-
The SC/ST Act is protective, not punitive by design.
-
Victim rights must be exercised responsibly and fairly.
-
Courts remain vigilant to ensure that legal safeguards are not used to exert undue pressure or manipulate proceedings.
-
Bail doctrines must be applied objectively, even in sensitive cases.
The ruling also highlights the judiciary’s increasing focus on scrutiny of delayed FIRs, especially in cases involving serious allegations.
CONCLUSION: A BALANCED APPROACH TO VICTIM PROTECTION AND FAIR PROCESS
The Allahabad High Court’s decision reinforces the principle that while the SC/ST Act protects victims of caste-based atrocities, its provisions should not be used improperly. Courts are tasked with ensuring fairness to both victims and accused.
By granting bail and reminding that the Act's rights must not be misused, the High Court emphasizes judicial consistency: stringent laws require responsible application, and justice depends on both protection and balance.

Comments
Post a Comment