State Government's Power To Delegate Investigation Into Offenses Under SC/ST Act Cannot Be Curtailed By Rules: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently held that Section 9(1)(b) of the SC/ST Act grants State Governments the power to delegate the authority to arrest, investigate, and prosecute offenders. This delegation of power, as emphasized by the Court, is a vital aspect of the Act and should not be curtailed by any rules framed under Section 23 of the SC/ST Act.It is pertinent to note Section 9 of the...
The Supreme Court recently held that Section 9(1)(b) of the SC/ST Act grants State Governments the power to delegate the authority to arrest, investigate, and prosecute offenders. This delegation of power, as emphasized by the Court, is a vital aspect of the Act and should not be curtailed by any rules framed under Section 23 of the SC/ST Act.
It is pertinent to note Section 9 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 deals with
Conferment of powers.—
“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other provision of this Act, the State Government may, if it considers it necessary or expedient to do—
(a) for the prevention of and for coping with any offense under this Act……
by notification in the Official Gazette, on any officer of the State Government, the powers exercisable by a police officer under the Code in such district or part thereof or, as the case may be, for such case or class or group of cases, and in particular, the powers of arrest, investigation, and prosecution of persons before any special court.”
The Court relied on the State of Bihar v. Anil Kumar (2017) 14 SCC 304 to emphasize the significance of the non-obstante clause which explicitly allows State Governments to exercise these powers regardless of any provisions within the SC/ST Act and the SC/ST Rules.
The Court had observed that “Section 9(1)(b) of the SC/ST Act confers on the State Government the power to further delegate the power to arrest, investigation and prosecution. This power vested with the State Government, through a non-obstante clause, cannot be neutralized by any rule framed under Section 23 of the SC/ST Act. The non-obstante clause would allow a State Government to exercise the power conferred on it irrespective of the provisions of the SC/ST Act, and irrespective of the provisions of the SC/ST Rules.”
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti was hearing an appeal against the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court which had quashed and set aside the case against the respondent under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act,1989.
In the present case, Lala Saurabh Verma(respondent) was charged under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
He moved a writ petition before HC and contended that there was an inherent defect in the investigation since it was carried out by the Sub Inspector of Police, who was not authorized in terms of Rule 7 of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Rules, 1995.
According to Rule 7(1), “investigation of an offense committed under the SC/ST Act cannot be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).”
The legal controversy surrounding this case arose from the changes in the authorization of officers to conduct investigations under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. At the time of registration of FIR, the notification by the Home Dept. in 2012 prevailed which authorized officers at the level of Inspector and Sub-Inspector to conduct investigations under the SC/ST Act.
However, later on, the government withdrew the earlier notification in 2018, and consequently, officers at the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy. S.P.) were designated to conduct investigations under the SC/ST Act.
The HC had held that the Investigating Officer (Sub Inspector of Police) was precluded from investigating into an offence under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
Therefore, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court.
In its decision, the Apex Court concluded that, post the issuance of the notification on 10.07.2018, the Dy. S.P. was authorized to carry out the investigation. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order, which had quashed the proceedings based on the competence of the authorized officer, was set aside.
It ordered “the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 05/07.02.2023, quashing the proceedings for lack of competence of the authorized officer carrying out the investigation, is set aside. The prosecution/ proceedings will continue in accordance with law.”
Case title: Sunil Kumar v. Lala Saurabh Verma
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 858