SC/ST Act - Notice To Victim Under Section 15A In Court Proceedings Against Accused Is Mandatory : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that requirement under Section 15A of SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of issuing notice of a court proceeding to a victim or a dependent is  mandatory.

The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed that, as per this requirement, a reasonable and timely notice must be issued to the victim or their dependent.

Under Section 15A(3), a victim or his dependent shall have the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any Court proceeding including any bail proceeding and the Special Public Prosecutor or the State Government shall inform the victim about any proceedings under this Act. As per Section 15A(5), a victim or his dependent shall be entitled to be heard at any proceeding under this Act in respect of bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused or any connected proceedings or arguments and file written submission on conviction, acquittal or sentencing.

One of the contentions in the appeal filed by complainant against the High Court order granting bail to an accused was that there has been a fundamental infraction of the provisions of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act by the High Court in not issuing notice to the complainant, as he was entitled to be heard in any proceeding under the Act.

Referring to Section 15A, the court noted:

Sub-section (3) of Section 15A confers a statutory right on the victim or their dependents to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding including a bail proceeding. In addition, sub-section (3) requires a Special Public Prosecutor or the State Government to inform the victim about any proceeding under the Act. Sub-section (3) confers a right to a prior notice, this being evident from the use of the expression "reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding including any bail proceeding". Sub-section (5) provides for a right to be heard to the victim or to a dependent.

The court noted that Section 15A was introduced to protect the rights of the victims and witnesses whose rights as equal beneficiaries of the criminal justice system are often overlooked due to their weak social position. The bench referred to a Gujarat High Court judgment in Hemal Ashwin Jain v. Union of India

7. The finding of the Gujarat High Court that the requirement of issuing notice of a court proceeding to a victim or a dependent under Section 15A (3), in order to provide them an opportunity of being heard, is mandatory, finds echo in multiple High Court decisions  including a decision of the Rajasthan High Court. We find ourselves in agreement with the proposition and hold that sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A are mandatory in nature.

The court observed that, in the instant case, this right to notice and to be heard were violated. The court noted that when the complainant moved the High Court for cancellation of bail, it took the view that compliance with the principles of natural justice at that particular stage would cure the deficiency. Disapproving this view, the court said:

"There has been a clear infraction of the mandate of the statute. Sub-sections (3) and (5) have been introduced by the Parliament to ensure a right to be heard to the person against whom the offence is committed or to the dependents. These provisions must be scrupulously observed. We cannot agree with the finding of the Single Judge that the defect in not issuing notice to the victim or their dependent and depriving them of the opportunity to be heard in the concerned proceedings (for grant of bail) can be cured by providing them a hearing in a proceeding that arose subsequently (for cancellation of bail). Compliance with the principles of natural justice must be observed at every stage under the mandate of the statute."

The court observed that sub-section (3) of Section 15A provides that a reasonable and timely notice must be issued to the victim or their dependent.

"This would entail that the notice is served upon victims or their dependents at the first or earliest possible instance. If undue delay is caused in the issuance of notice, the victim, or as the case may be, their dependents, would remain uninformed of the progress made in the case and it would prejudice their rights to effectively oppose the defense of the accused. It would also ultimately delay the bail proceedings or the trial, affecting the rights of the accused as well."

 Atrocities against SC-ST Members are not a thing of the past.

20. Atrocities against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not a thing of the past. They continue to be a reality in our society even today. Hence the statutory provisions which have been enacted by Parliament as a 16 measure of protecting the constitutional rights of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes must be complied with and enforced conscientiously. There has been an evident breach of the statutory requirements embodied in sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A in the present case.

The court also noticed that there is absolutely no reasoning in the order of the High Court granting bail. While setting aside the bail order, the bench observed:

"After recording the submissions of the first respondent's counsel apart from noting that the public prosecutor had opposed the bail. The High Court held that it was just and expedient to release the first  respondent on bail "keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case". Such orders cannot pass muster. The duty to record reasons cannot be obviated by recording submissions, followed by an omnibus "in the facts and circumstances" formula. Brief reasons which indicate the basis for granting bail are essential, for it is the reasons adduced by the court which indicate the basis of the order."

Click here to Read/Download Judgment