Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
STATE OF M.P. & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAM KRISHNA BALOTHIA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT06/02/1995
BENCH:
MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)
BENCH:
MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 1198 1995 SCC (3) 221
JT 1995 (2) 310 1995 SCALE (1)658
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
1. Special leave granted
2. These appeal by special have been filed by the State
of Madhya Pradesh and another against the judgment and order
dated 25.3.1994 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which is
the common judgment governing all these appeals. In the
petitions which were filed by the respondents here, before
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the respondents had challenged the
constitutional validity of certain provisions of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. The High Court, while negativing
this challenge in respect of some of the sections of the
said Act has however, held that Section 18 of the said Act
is unconstitutional since it violates Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution of India- The present appeals have been
filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh to challenge the
finding of the Madhya Pradesh High Court,in respect of
section 18 of the said Act.
3. Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of
313
Atrocities) Act, 1989 is as follows:-
"Section 438 of the Code not to apply to
persons committing an offence under the Act:-
Nothing in Section 438 of the Code shall apply
in relation to any case involving the arrest
of any person on an accusation of having
committed an offence under this Act."
4. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides
for grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest. It
provides, inter alia, that when any person has reason to
apprehend that he may be arrested on an accusation of having
committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High
Court or to a Court of Sessions for a direction that in the
even of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. We have
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
to consider whether a denial of this right to apply for
anticipatory bail in respect of offences committed under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1 989, can be considered as violative of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
5. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ’the
said Act’) was enacted in order to prevent the co ion of
atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes and to provide for special courts for the trial of
offence under the said Act as also to provide for the relief
and rehabilitation of victims of such offences. "Atrocity"
has been defined under Section 2 of the said Act to mean an
offence punishable under Section 3(1). Section 3(1)
provides as follows:-
"Punishments for offences of atrocities :-
(1) whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe-
(i) forces a member of a Scheduled Caste or
a Scheduled Tribe to drink or cat any inedible
or obnoxious substance:
(ii)acts with intent to cause injury, insult
or annoyance to any member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by dumping excreta
waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious
substance in his premises or neighbourhood;
(iii)forcibly, removes clothes from the person
of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe or parades him naked or with
painted face or body or commits any similar
act which is derogatory to human dignity;
(iv)wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land
owned by, or allotted to, or notified by any
competent authority to be allotted to, a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe or gets the land allotted to him
transferred;
(v) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his
land or premises or interferes with the
enjoyment of his rights over any land premises
or water.
(vi) Comples or entices a member of_ Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to do ’begar’ or
other similar forms of forced or bonded
labour other than any compulsory service for
public purposes imposed by Government
(vii) forces or intimidates a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
314
Tribe not to vote or to vote to a particular
candidate or to vote in a manner other then
that provide by law;
(viii) institutes false, malicious or
vexatious suit or criminal or other legal
proceedings against a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;
(ix) gives any false or frivolous information
to any public servant and thereby causes such
public servant to use his lawful power to the
injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates
with intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
place within public view;
(xi) assaults or uses force to any woman
belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe with intent to dishonor or outrage her
modesty;
(xii) I being in a position to dominate the
will of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe and uses that position to
exploit her sexually to which she would not
have otherwise agreed.
(xiii) corrupts or fouls the water of any
spring, reservoir or any other source
ordinarily used by members of the Scheduled
Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so as to render
it less fit for the purpose for which it is
ordinarily used
(xiv) denies a member of a Scheduled Caste or
a Scheduled Tribe customary right of
passage to a place of public resort or
obstructs such
member so as to prevent him from using or
having access to a place of public resort to
which other members of public or any section
thereof have a right to use or access to;
(xv) forces or causes a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to leave his house,
village or other place of residence;
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than six months
but which may extend to five years and with
fine".
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply
to any case involving arrest of any person accused of having
committed any of the above offences.
6. It is undoubtedly true that Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, which is available to an accused in
respect of offences under the Penal Code, is not available
in respect of offences under the said Act. But can this be
considered as violative of Article 14? The offences enu-
merated under the said Act fall into a separate and special
class. Article 17 of the Constitution expressly deals with
abolition of "Untouchability" and forbids its practice in
any form. It also provides that enforcement of any
disability arising out of "Untouchability" shall be an
offence punishable in accordancewith law. The offences,
therefore, which are enumerated under Section 3(1) arise out
of the practice of "Untouchability". It is in this context
that certain special provisions have been made in the said
Act, including the impugned provision under Section 18 which
-is before us. The exclusion of Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in connection with offences under the
said Act has to be viewed in the context of the prevailing
social conditions which give
315
rise to such offences, and the apprehen-
Scheduled Castes persons eat inedible sub-
sion that perpetrators of such atrocities are likely to
threaten and intimidate their victims and prevent or
obstruct them in the prosecution of these offenders, if the
offenders are allowed to avail of anticipatory bail. In
this connection we may refer to the Statement of Objects and
Reasons accompanying the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Bill, 1989, when it was
introduced in Parliament. It sets out the circumstances
surrounding the enactment of the said Act and points to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
evil which the statute sought to remedy. In the Statement
of Objects and Reasons it is stated:-
Despite various measures to improve the
socioeconomic conditions of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, they remain
vulnerable. They are denied number of civil
rights. They are subjected to various
offences, indignities, humliations and
harassment. They have, in several brutal
incidents, been deprived of their life and
property. Serious crimes are committed
against them for various historical, social
and economic reasons.
2............... When they assert their rights
and resist practices of untouchability against
than or demand statutory minimum wages or
refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the
vested interests try to cow them down and
terronse them. When the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their
self-respect or honour of their women, they
become irritants for the dominant and the
mighty. Occupation and cultivation of even
the government allotted land by the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes is resented and
more often these people become victims of
attacks by the vested interests. Of late,
there has been an increase in the disturbing
trend of commission of certain atrocities like
making the Scheduled Castes persons eat
inedible sub-stances like human excreta. and
attacks on and mass killings of helpless
Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes and rape
of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and
the Schedules Tribes.................... A
special legislation to check and deter crimes
against them committed by non-Schedules Castes
and nonSchedules Tribes has, therefore, become
necessary.
The above statement graphically describes the social
conditions which motivated the said legislation. It is
pointed out in the above Statement of Objects and Reasons
that when members of the Schedules Castes and Schedules
Tribes assert their rights and demand statutory protection,
vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them.
In these circumstances, if anticipatory bail is not made
available to persons who commit such offences, such a denial
cannot be considered as unreasonable or violative of Article
14, as these offences form a distinct class by themselves
and cannot be compared with other offences.
7. We have next to examine whether Section 18 of the
said Act violates, in any manner, Article 21 of the
Constitution which protects the life and personal liberty of
every person in this country. Article 21 enshrines the
right to live with human dignity, a precious right to which
every human-being is entitled those who have been, for
centuries, denied this right, more so. We find it difficult
to accept the contention that Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is an integral part of Article 21. In
the first place, there was no provision similar to Section
438 in the old Criminal Procedure Code. The Law Commission
in its 41st Report recommended introduction of provision for
grant of
316
anticipatory ball. It observed:-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
"We agree that this would be a useful
advantage. Though we must add that it is in
every exceptional cases that such power should
be exercised".
In the light of this recommendation, Section 438 was
incorporated, for the first time, in the Criminal Procedure
Code of 1973. Looking to the cautious recommendation of the
Law Commission, the power to grant anticipatory bail is
conferred only on a Court of Sessions or the High Court.
Also, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of
right. It is essentially a statutory right conferred long
after the coming into force of the Constitution. It cannot
be considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21 of
the Constitution. And its non-application to a certain
special category of offences cannot be considered as
violative of Article 21.
8. Section 20(7) of the Terrorists and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 came for consideration
before this Court in the case of kartar Singh v.State of
Punjab (JT 1994 (2) SC 423). Section 20(7) of the
Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
also provides that nothing in Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure shall apply in relation to any case
involving arrest of any person of an accusation of having
committed an offence punishable under this Act or any rule
made thereunder. The language of Section 20(7) is almost
identical with the language of Section 18 of the said Act
which we are considering. It was argued before this Court
in Kartar Singh’s Case (supra) that the right of an accused
to avail of anticipatory bail is an integral part of Article
21 of the Constitution and its removal from the Terrorists
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 would be
violative of Article 21. This Court referred to the history
of introduction of Section 438 in the Code of Criminal
Procedure (paragraph 355) and said that there was no such
provision in the old Criminal Procedure Code and it was in-
troduced for the first time in the present Code of 1973.
This Court also pointed out that Section 438 is omitted in
the State of U.P. by Section 9 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (UP Amendment) Act, 1976, with effect form
28.11.1975. In the State of West Bengal, a proviso is
inserted to Section 438 (1) with effect from 24.11.1988 to
the effect that no final order shall be made on an
application filed by the accused praying for anticipatory
bail in relation to an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less
than seven days’ notice to present its case. OA similar
provision is also introduced by the State of Orissa. Where
a person accused of a non-bailable offence is likely to
abscond or otherwise misuse this liberty while on bail, he
will have no justification to claim the benefit of
anticipatory bail. In the case of terrorists and
disruptists, there was every likelihood of their absconding
and misusing their liberty if released on anticipatory bail
and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in not extending the
benefit of Section 438 to them. This Court concluded:-
"further at the risk of repetition we may add
that Section 438 ’contains a new provision
incorporated in the present Code creating a
new right. If that new right is taken away,
can it be said that the removal of Section 438
is violative of Article 21........
Its answer was in the negative. Section 20(7) of the
Terrorists and Disruptive
317
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was upheld.
9. Of course, the offences enumerated under the present
case are very different from those under the Terrorists and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. However,
looking to the historical background relating to the
practice of "Untouchability" and the social attitudes which
lead to the commission of such offences against Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes, 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. It cannot be considered
as in any manner violative of Article 21.
10.It was submitted before us that while Section 438 is
available for graver offences under the Penal Code, it is
not available for even "minor offences" under the said Act.
This grievance also cannot be justified. The offences which
are enumerated under Section 3 are offences which, to say
the least, denigrate members of Scheduled Castes and
Schedules Tribes in the eyes of society, and prevent them
from leading a life of dignity and self-respect. Such
offences are committed to humiliate and subjugate members of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with a view to keeping
them in a state of secrvitude. These offences constitute a
separate class and cannot be compared with offences under
the Penal Code.
11. A similar view of Section 18 of the said Act has been
taken by the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the
Case of Jai Singh and Anr. v. Union of India (AIR 1993
Rajasthan 117) and we respectfully agree with its findings.
12. In the premises, Section 18 of the said Act cannot be
considered as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution.
13. The appeals are accordingly allowed. In the
circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
318