LexSTATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS ETC. versus ANIL KUMAR AND OTHERS ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 711
STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS ETC.
v.
ANIL KUMAR AND OTHERS ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4397-4400of2017)
MARCH 23, 2017
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI,
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.)
A
B
. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of c
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - ss.9, 23 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - r. 7 - Central
Government in exercise of rule making power vested u/s. 23, SCST
A Ct framed 1995 Rules wherein r. 7 vested the investigative authority.
for offences committed under SCST Act with an officer not below
the rank of a DSP - However, appellant-State in exercise of power D
vested in it u/s.9, SCST Act issued a notification allowing the
investigative process to be ca_rried by officers three ranks below
the rank of DSP, namely, through officers/officials holding the ranks
of Inspector. Sub-Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police
~ Notification challenged contending that it was ultra vires the
E
provisions of SCST Act as also contrary to r. 7 of 1995 Rules - High
Court upheld the validity of the impugned notification - On appeal,
held: S.9 of SCST Act extended the power of arrest, investigation
and prosecution, to all officers as would be entitled to carry out the
said responsibilities, under CrPC - In addition, it further authorized
the State Government to delegate the power of i'nvestigation (in
F
addition to, the power of a~rest, and of prosecution) in respect of
offences under the SCST Act, " ... to any officer of the State
Government ... ", as the State Government may consider "necessary"
- Thus, the power vested with the State Government u/s. 9 was clearly
expansive and was intended to enlarge the zone of arrest,
G
investigation and prosecution, to officers/officials in addition to
those authorised to do so under CrPC - Therefore, the power of
delegation was not limited to police personnel only, but extended to
any officer of the State Government, w!io may or may not belong to
the Police Department ... The said power was given to the State
H
• . 711
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017) 6 S.C.R.
A Government through a non-obstante clause and could be exercised
irrespective of the provisions of CrPC and even the parent SCST
Act itself - Impugned notification upheld - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
B
·C
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Rules, 1995 - r.7 -
Validity of - Held: Jn view of serious and harsh consequences
emerging from any violation of the provisions of SCST Act, the
Central Government in exercise of its rule making authority was
fully competent and justified, in requiring that the investigative
process be conducted by an officer not below the rank of a DSP -
The power exercised by Central Government was within the
framework of authority vested in it - Thus, exercise of such
authority, by Central Government, cannot be assailed on the grounds
of competence or legitimacy - r. 7 held to be valid.
Administrative Law - 1995 Rules framed by Central
Government uls.23 of the parent Act wherein r. 7 vested investigative
D
authority for offences committed under the said Act - State
Government exercising power uls.9 of the parent Act issued
notification relaxing the said provision made by r. 7 of 1995 Rules -
Permissibility of - Held: A provision made under a rule, i.e. r. 7
E
cannot negate a right extended through the parent legislation i.e.
by way of s.9 - The power vested with the State Government, through
a non obstante clause uls.9, cannot be neutralized by any rule framed
uls.23, SCST Act - Thus, the non obstante allowed the State
Government to exercise the power conferred on it irrespective of
the provisions of the parent Act or rules framed thereunder.
F
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In view of the rule making authority, and the
seriousness attached to the offences contemplated under the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SCST Act') and the policy
G depicted through the legislative intent expressed therein, as also,
the harsh consequences emerging from any violation of the
provisions of the 'SCST Act', the Central Government was fully
competent and justified in exercise of its rule making authority,
in requiring that the investigative process be conducted by an
officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
H
STATE OF BIHARAND OExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.