In a critical judgment, the Supreme Court has acquainted protections with forestall abuse of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against officers who manage the protestations under the Act in their official limit. It has held that earlier endorse of designating expert is required for indicting officers for acts done by them as for SC/ST Act 1989 in their official limit.
The judgment was rendered by a Bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit in an interest against a judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had declined to suppress the indictment of one Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, who is the Director of Technical Education.
Certain unfavorable comments were against respondent Bhaskar Karbhari Gaikwad by the Principal and Head of the Department of the College of Pharmacy where the respondent was utilized. Gaikwad looked for endorse for arraignment of the Principal under the arrangements of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and for certain other associated offenses.
The said matter was managed by the appealing party, who was then the Director of Technical Education. The appealing party declined to endorse the same, whereupon another grievance was documented by the respondent against the litigant under the Act. The suppress of the said grumbling was declined by the High Court, prompting bid in Supreme Court. At the point when the issue was taken up for hearing on November 20 a year ago, the Supreme Court, in the wake of taking note of the realities, had confined the accompanying inquiry:
“The inquiry which has emerged over the span of thought of this issue is whether any one-sided claim of mala fide can be ground to indict officers who managed the issue in official limit and if such affirmation is erroneously made what is insurance accessible against such manhandle.”
The Court at that point watched that if the assertion is followed up on, the procedures can bring about capture or indictment of the individual and have genuine results to his right side to freedom even on a false objection. It, along these lines, continued to consider whether, “there can be procedural shields so arrangements of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 are not mishandled for unessential contemplations?” The Bench had then selected Senior Advocate Amarendra Sharan as to help the court alongside advocate Amit Anand Tiwari. It had likewise heard Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh.
