Courtesy: Sheetal Pokhriyal
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 aims to protect the rights of individuals belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by preventing any offences or atrocities committed against them. The Act also establishes Special Courts to expedite the trial of such cases.
Section 14A was added to the Original Act through “The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015” providing for “Appeals”. Section 14A of the Act introduced a formal structure for appeals against decisions made by the Special Courts. This section permits appeals to be made against convictions, acquittals, or other rulings delivered by these courts. The appeal can be based on both factual errors and legal mistakes.
What is Section 14A of the 1989 Act?
Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for brevity called the 1989 Act) provides for an “Appeal Against any judgment, sentence, or order passed by the Special Court or exclusive special court”. The only condition in this regard is that the Orde must not be an “Interlocutory Order”. The appeal must focus on the grounds of the appeal, including errors in the judgment or procedural irregularities.
Section 14A(2), an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail.
Section 14A(3): Time Limit for Filing an Appeal: An appeal must be filed within 90 days of the judgment, sentence, or order. The High Court can allow an appeal after 90 days if it believes the person had a valid reason for the delay.
Section (14A(4)): Speedy Disposal of Appeals: Once an appeal is admitted by the High Court, the court should aim to resolve it within three months to ensure quick justice.
Can a Petition under Section 482 CrPC/ 528 BNSS be filed before Allahabad High Court when a remedy of Appeal is available under the 1989 Act?
Since a Statutory remedy exists for the same, petition invoking the inherent powers of the High Court is not maintainable. In the case Pawan Kumar Alias Pawan Yadav vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko And Another, an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Pawan Kumar alias Pawan Yadav, seeking the quashing of a charge sheet related to an FIR for offences under the IPC and SC/ST Act 1989. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., concluding that the applicant had a statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court emphasized that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are meant to be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. Since the appeal would be heard by another bench of the same High Court, and its scope would be broader, the applicant’s use of Section 482 appeared to be a case of forum shopping, which was discouraged by the court. The application was dismissed, leaving it open for the applicant to file an appeal under Section 14-A of the Act.
Whether Summoning Order and Chargesheet can be challenged by filing an Appeal under Section 14A of the SC ST Act 1989?
Appeal under Section 14A of SC ST Act 1989 can also be filed by challenging the Summoning Order and Chargesheet, and also with a prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the case. This relief is similar to that vested in the Allahabad High Court under Section 528 of BNSS/ Section 482 of CrPC. Various Orders have been passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court staying the effect and operation of the Summoning Order, and proceedings arising out of the Chargesheet.
In the appeal case of Lal Mani Yadav and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022), the appellants challenged a charge sheet and a summoning order related to an FIR that included various IPC sections and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellants argued that the private respondent, who belongs to the Majhi caste, does not qualify as a member of the Scheduled Caste. The Allahabad High Court directed the Applicant to file an Application under Section 156(3) CrPC read with Section 173(8) of CrPC and kept the proceedings against the applicant in abeyance.
Can a party appeal against a bail order issued by a Special Court under the SC/ST Act?
Section 14A(2) of the 1989 Act provides for an Appeal Against Bail Orders. If a Special Court grants or refuses to grant bail where offences under the SC/ST Act 1989 are involved, an appeal can be made to the Allahabad High Court. Bail rejection Orders are challenged by means of Appeal, however, it is not the same as filing a Bail Application before the Allahabad High Court. In appeal, the court is required to consider whether the Special Court has erred in granting or denying relief to the appellant based on the order under challenge. The High Court is required to see whether the order of the court below can be sustained and whether its findings are in accordance with the legal and factual issues involved in the consideration of the bail application of the accused by the Special Court or not. This issue was analyzed in Sunil @Shivkumar vs. State of U.P. and Bail was granted to the Accused.
Are there any specific time limitations for filing an appeal in the Allahabad High Court under the SC/ST Act?
Yes, as per Section 14A(3) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, an appeal must be filed within 90 days from the date of the judgment, sentence, or order being challenged. However, the High Court can entertain an appeal after 90 days if the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing within the time limit. The High Court is barred from considering any appeal if it is filed after a lapse of 180 days from the said judgment, sentence, or order.
In the case Ghulam Rasool Khan & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors(2022), The appeal was filed with a delay of 180 days, and the appellants sought to have it converted into a bail application, citing Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), based on a previous judgment in Rohit vs. State of U.P. The case was referred to a Full Bench to determine whether such conversions were permissible and whether an aggrieved person could seek an appeal under Section 14A and a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Full Bench overruled Rohit’s case, holding that an appeal under Section 14A could not be converted into a bail application and that dual remedies under Sections 14A of the 1989 Act and 439 of CrPC were not allowed. The court also confirmed that if an appeal remedy under Section 14A exists, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked.
Furthermore, the second proviso to Section 14A(3) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, which imposed a 180-day limit for filing appeals, was struck down by a judicial decision rather than legislative interference. The Allahabad High Court, in a Full Bench decision comprising Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale, Ramesh Sinha, and Yashwant Varma, JJ., struck down this proviso in the case titled Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases (Criminal Writ – PIL) under Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. The court held that the 180-day bar for filing appeals violated the principles of fairness and justice enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It deemed the limitation period irrational and excessive, as it removed judicial discretion to condone delays even when sufficient cause was present. This was seen as a violation of the appellant’s right to a fair appeal, which is a core aspect of procedural justice under Article 21. The High Court did not interfere with the validity of Section 14A(2) (on appeals against bail orders), upholding its constitutionality, but the second proviso to Section 14A(3) was declared unconstitutional.
What are the typical grounds for an appeal under the SC/ST Act, 1989, in cases heard by the Allahabad High Court?
There are several grounds on which appeals can be filed under the SC/ST Act:
- Errors in Judgment: Errors in judgment refer to instances where either the victim or the accused believes that the trial court made a mistake in interpreting the law or assessing the evidence. Such errors can significantly impact the outcome of a case, warranting a review by a higher court. In the Prakash Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Other (2024), the Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal seeking the registration of an FIR against Swami Rambhadracharya for allegedly making objectionable comments against the Scheduled Caste community. Justice Saurabh Srivastava concluded that no specific offence under the SC/ST Act was established, thereby ensuring the correct interpretation of the law. This case underscores the importance of precise legal interpretation and the necessity of preventing the misuse of the SC/ST Act for unfounded claims.
- Improper Application of Law: An appeal may be based on the argument that the lower court misapplied or misinterpreted the provisions of the SC/ST Act, leading to an erroneous decision.
- Lack of Evidence: If the judgment or order of the lower court is not supported by sufficient evidence, or if key evidence was ignored or improperly evaluated, this can be a ground for appeal.
- Procedural Irregularities: Any significant procedural errors that occurred during the trial, such as violations of the principles of natural justice or improper admission of evidence, may provide grounds for challenging the decision.
- Constitutional Violations: Claims that the judgment violates constitutional rights, such as the right to equality or the right to a fair trial, can also form the basis for an appeal.
It is pertinent to note that grounds based on law and facts both can be raised in an Appeal under Section 14A of SC ST Act 1989. Hence, proper appreciation of facts is a sine-qua-non for filing appeal.
What are the potential outcomes of an appeal in an SC/ST case handled by the Allahabad High Court?
The Allahabad High Court can deliver several outcomes when hearing appeals under the SC/ST Act. It may affirm the Lower Court’s decision. It may also modify the sentence to the extent as the Court may deem fit. The High Court may overturn the trial court’s judgment, acquitting or convicting the accused. It may also order a de novo trial. Concerning Bail matters, the Allahabad High Court may grant bail if the conditions mentioned above are fulfilled and set aside the bail rejection order. Moreover, under this jurisdiction, the Allahabad High Court may also set aside summoning orders and quash entire proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. or Chargesheet attracting offences under SC ST Act 1989.
When filing an appeal under Section 14A, it is essential for the appellant to clearly articulate the specific grounds for the appeal, supported by evidence and legal arguments. This allows the High Court to assess the merits of the appeal effectively and decide whether to uphold, modify, or overturn the decision of the Special Court.