LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2020 INSC 157Decided 10 Feb 2020
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1015 of 2018
Justice Arun Mishra · Justice Vineet Saran · Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

Background

In 2018, Parliament inserted Section 18A into the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, specifically to undo the Supreme Court's own 2018 ruling in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, which had required a preliminary police inquiry before registering an FIR and prior approval before arresting an accused under the Act, and had allowed anticipatory bail in such cases. Section 18A removed these safeguards, restoring the Act's original bar on preliminary inquiry and anticipatory bail. The petitioners challenged this amendment as unconstitutional, arguing it was arbitrary and violated Article 21 (right to life and liberty) by removing protections against false implication.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 2018 Amendment and Section 18A, noting that the Court itself had already recalled the Subhash Kashinath Mahajan directions (the ones the amendment was designed to override) in separate review proceedings in October 2019, making much of the amendment's challenge academic. The Court reaffirmed that the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 serves a legitimate purpose given the continuing social reality of caste-based discrimination and atrocities in India, and does not violate Articles 14 or 21, relying on its earlier precedent in State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia. It clarified that courts retain the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings or grant pre-arrest protection in the rare case where a complaint discloses no prima facie offence at all, preserving a safety valve against misuse without reintroducing a general preliminary-inquiry requirement. The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of, with the challenge to the amendment rejected.

Lesson Learnt

Special legal protections for historically disadvantaged groups (like the bar on anticipatory bail in SC/ST atrocity cases) can validly override general criminal procedure safeguards without violating constitutional rights, though courts retain a narrow, exceptional power to step in only where a complaint plainly discloses no offence at all.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case