Union of India v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Background
In its earlier judgment dated 20.03.2018 (Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2018), the Supreme Court had issued guidelines restricting arrests under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, including requiring prior approval of the appointing authority or the SSP before arresting a public or non-public servant, and a preliminary inquiry by a Deputy Superintendent of Police before registering an FIR. The Union of India filed review petitions arguing these directions diluted the protective purpose of the Act and were not warranted, since Parliament itself had already weighed the competing considerations when enacting the law. The Attorney General, appearing on notice, argued the Court's directions under Article 142 could not override or dilute an express statutory scheme in the absence of any legislative vacuum.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the earlier guidelines amounted to judicial legislation that improperly fettered the Act's protective scheme, relying on precedent (including Lalita Kumari and Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India) that no preliminary inquiry is required once a cognizable offence is disclosed, and that Article 142 cannot be used to override or supplant an express statute where no legal vacuum exists. It found requiring approval from an appointing authority or SSP before arrest, and a mandatory preliminary inquiry by a DSP, imposed an unwarranted extra hurdle on SC/ST victims not applicable to victims of ordinary IPC offences, undermining the Act's protective discrimination rationale under Article 15(4). The Court accordingly recalled directions (iii) and (iv) of the 2018 judgment (on prior approval for arrest and the mandatory preliminary inquiry) and held that direction (v), which made violation of those directions actionable as contempt/disciplinary action, automatically fell away as a result. The review petitions were allowed to that extent.
Lesson Learnt
The Supreme Court's own earlier guidelines are not beyond review, where a later bench finds that judicially-created safeguards effectively dilute a protective statute passed by Parliament for a vulnerable class, those guidelines can be recalled; the case also illustrates the limits of Article 142 "complete justice" powers, which cannot be used to add conditions that conflict with an express legislative scheme.