9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Whether Section 18 violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Summary: Issue 1: Constitutional Validity of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 The appeals were filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging the High Court's decision that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is unconstitutional. Section 18 states: "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." Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for anticipatory bail, which is not available for offences under the said Act. Issue 2: Violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution Article 14: The Court examined whether the denial of anticipatory bail for offences under the said Act violates Article 14. The Court noted that the offences under the Act form a distinct class due to their connection with the practice of "Untouchability" as addressed by Article 17 of the Constitution. The exclusion of Section 438 is justified by the social conditions and the potential for perpetrators to intimidate victims. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act highlights the vulnerability and historical oppression of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, justifying special provisions to protect them. Therefore, the denial of anticipatory bail under Section 18 is not considered violative of Article 14. Article 21: The Court also considered whether Section 18 violates Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty. The Court found that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced in 1973, is not an integral part of Article 21. The provision for anticipatory bail is a statutory right, not a constitutional one. The Court referenced the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, where a similar provision under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was upheld. Given the historical context and social attitudes leading to offences against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the denial of anticipatory bail under Section 18 is justified and does not violate Article 21. Conclusion: The Court concluded that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The appeals were allowed, and there was no order as to costs.
|
