LI Network
Published on: 11 May 2023 at 23:13 IST
The Supreme Court of India has cautioned police officers to be cautious while invoking stringent laws such as the SC-ST Act.
The court reminded the officers that such laws should only be used after a thorough investigation and if there is enough evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The bench, comprising of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, noted that the SC-ST Act is being used indiscriminately against public servants, which can result in an adverse impact on the functioning of public administration.
The court also observed that such laws were meant to provide protection to the marginalized and weaker sections of society, and their misuse could result in a backlash against them.
The Supreme Court has issued a reminder to police officers to be cautious before invoking provisions of stringent laws like the SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court has emphasized that the officer must be satisfied that the provisions he seeks to apply prima facie apply to the case at hand.
The court has clarified that these observations are not intended to dilute the applicability of special or stringent statutes, but only to remind the police not to mechanically apply the law without reference to the factual position.
It is essential to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected, and the law is not misused to harass innocent people. The SC-ST Act is an important tool to prevent and punish crimes against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and it must be used judiciously and with caution to achieve its intended purpose.
Supreme Court Ruled, “This Court would indicate that the officers, who institute an FIR, based on any complaint, are duty bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on the concerned accused,”.
“The officer has to be satisfied that the provisions he seeks to invoke prima facie apply to the case at hand. We clarify that our remarks, in no manner, are to dilute the applicability of special/stringent statutes, but only to remind the police not to mechanically apply the law, dehors reference to the factual position.”.
Based on the complaint and FIR, the Supreme Court found that there was no discernible offence made out under the SC/ST Act against the appellant. The court also observed that the complaint and FIR were frivolous, vexatious, and oppressive. As a result, the court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings against the accused.
Thank you for the additional details. It is clear from the case details that the Supreme Court found that the complaint and FIR filed against Gulam Mustafa were frivolous, vexatious, and oppressive, and that the allegations did not make out any offence under the SC/ST Act. The Court also noted that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and that there were pending civil litigations on the issue.
The Court observed that when purely civil disputes are given the color of criminality, it amounts to an abuse of the process of the court.
The Court also emphasized the need for police officers to be vigilant before invoking provisions of stringent laws like the SC/ST Act and to satisfy themselves that the provisions apply prima facie to the case at hand.