Allahabad High Court has asked a trial judge posted in Aligarh to explain the circumstances under which a non-existent provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989, was cited while summoning an accused, raising concerns over judicial accuracy in applying special penal statutes.The direction came while the court was hearing a petition challenging a summoning order dated April 30, 2024, passed by the then special judge dealing with cases under the SC/ST Act in Aligarh. According to submissions placed before the High Court, the trial court invoked “Section 3” of the SC/ST Act, a provision that does not find place anywhere in the statute. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the error was not merely typographical but reflected a deeper lapse in the application of law that had direct consequences for the liberty of the accused.
The High Court, taking note of the contention, recorded that prima facie the provision referred to in the summoning order does not exist in the Act as enacted by Parliament or as amended from time to time. On this basis, the bench directed the trial judge concerned to submit an explanation clarifying how such a provision came to be cited and whether due care was exercised before issuing the summoning order. The court also sought to examine whether the error had any bearing on the legality of the proceedings initiated against the accused.
Legal practitioners following the case said the matter touches on a sensitive and significant area of criminal jurisprudence, as the SC/ST Act is a special legislation with stringent provisions, including restrictions on anticipatory bail and enhanced penalties in specified circumstances. Courts have repeatedly emphasised that while the Act serves an important protective function, its invocation must strictly conform to statutory requirements.
The petition before the High Court arises from a complaint alleging offences under the SC/ST Act and the Penal Code. The special judge, while taking cognisance, cited Section 3 of the Act as the basis for summoning the accused. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 3 exists in the Act, dealing with enhanced punishment where an offence is committed on the ground that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, but no provision numbered 3 is to be found in the legislation. The counsel argued that such an error could not be brushed aside as harmless, particularly when the Act carries serious procedural and substantive consequences.
The High Court’s order indicates that it is examining the issue not only from the standpoint of the individual case but also in the broader context of judicial discipline and accuracy. The bench observed that judicial orders, especially those affecting personal liberty, must demonstrate clear application of mind and correct reference to statutory provisions. Any deviation, the court noted, undermines confidence in the administration of justice and exposes orders to challenge.
Senior advocates said the case also reflects a recurring problem seen in trial courts burdened with heavy caseloads, where mechanical reproduction of statutory sections sometimes leads to errors. However, they added that higher courts have consistently held that special laws like the SC/ST Act demand a higher degree of care because of their social purpose and the safeguards built into them.
In past rulings, the High Court and the Supreme Court have stressed that misuse or incorrect application of the SC/ST Act can dilute its objectives and also cause injustice to those wrongly implicated. At the same time, courts have cautioned against weakening the Act through casual or erroneous judicial orders, emphasising balanced and lawful enforcement.
The High Court has not, at this stage, set aside the summoning order, choosing instead to first seek an explanation from the trial judge. The matter is expected to be taken up again after the explanation is filed, at which point the court may decide whether the error warrants quashing of the proceedings or corrective directions to the trial court.