High Court Must Independently Apply Its Mind While Scrutinising SC/ST Act Charges In Section 14A Appeals: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order sustaining prosecution under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, holding that the record did not prima facie show the basic requirements of a caste-based offence, including any intentional caste-linked insult or intimidation. The Court quashed the SC/ST Act charges against the accused and remitted the case to the Special Court to proceed only on the remaining penal allegations arising from a public disturbance involving road obstruction, scuffle, and stone pelting during a gathering for a statue unveiling. It also said that, in an appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, the High Court acts as a first appellate court and cannot mechanically affirm the Special Court’s order without independent scrutiny of the material.
On 15 November 2022, a public gathering was held at Bachhadapara for the unveiling and installation of a statue of Bhagwan Birsa Munda. The complaint alleged that a group stopped vehicles of arriving public representatives and officials, leading to an altercation, road obstruction, and stone pelting at vehicles, in which a security personnel was injured.
Also Read: Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Invoked To Interdict An Arbitral Award: Supreme Court
An FIR was registered alleging obstruction of official work, misconduct with police, threats, and related offences, along with provisions under the SC/ST Act. The record referred to witness statements and a video of the incident as part of the material collected during investigation.
At the charge stage, the accused sought discharge, contending that the material did not set out specific caste-based words or other foundational allegations required for the SC/ST Act provisions, and also raised objections regarding investigation and his alleged role in the incident.
The Court recorded the governing standard at the stage of discharge/framing of charge: “The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.” It also stated: “At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.”
On the SC/ST Act aspect, the Court stated: “we are at a loss to understand that when the Trial Court itself acknowledges that none of the statements under Section 161 CrPC, state the specific slurs uttered by the accused with the intent to insult threaten or kill, then how is it found, on the same bundle of evidence, and with the same level of scrutiny thereof, that the alleged acts of the accused were informed by caste awareness. There does not appear to be any other material on record either, to establish knowledge on part of the accused. Once the knowledge on part of the alleged offender is in question, it is but certain that the charge cannot stand.”
The Court also recorded: “Curiously, the impugned judgment/order of the High Court, although running into eighteen pages, does not deal at all with the charge under SCST Act. All that is said, is that the Trial Court has ‘assigned elaborate reasons’.” It continued: “However, we are of the considered view that the apparent evidence on record is in no way sufficient for a facial analysis of the case at hand, or for a ‘prima facie’ view to be taken, or enough to distinguish suspicion from grave suspicion, in so far as the knowledge is concerned that would inform the accused’s alleged misdeeds.”
The Court further observed: “there is no averment whatsoever that the complainant was a member of the SCST Community.” It added: “when the complaint, and the subsequent statements under Section 161 CrPC, both, appear to be lacking in averments for caste motivated acts allegations, one where intent is absent, and the other where knowledge is apparently present, seems difficult to accept.”
On the nature of appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A, the Court stated: “An appeal under Section 14-A of the SCST Act is a statutory first appeal. It is well settled that a first appellate Court in criminal matters is a Court of both fact and law and is obliged to independently evaluate the material on record before either affirming or reversing the findings of the Courts below.” It then recorded: “Consequently, the High Court does not function as a revisional or supervisory Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 14-A but assumes the role of a first appellate court. A mechanical affirmation of the order of the Special Court, without independent scrutiny, would therefore be inconsistent with settled appellate jurisprudence and would amount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. Even where the appellate Court ultimately agrees with the reasoning of the Courts below, the judgment must disclose that the material was independently examined.”
The Court set out the threshold-stage discipline applicable in such appeals: “the test is whether the material on record, taken at face value, discloses the essential ingredients of the alleged offence and gives rise to a strong or grave suspicion against the accused. The Court is expressly cautioned against conducting a roving inquiry or weighing the evidence as if at trial.” It stated: “When these generally applicable principles are applied to an appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act arising from a threshold order, the High Court’s role, though appellate in nature, stands circumscribed by the limits governing discharge.”
The Court recorded: “Where these ingredients are conspicuously absent, interference is justified, as continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. This form of scrutiny does not amount to appreciation of the material but is an exercise in legal evaluation of the allegations as they stand.” It added: “At the same time, even while exercising first appellate jurisdiction, the High Court cannot, at the discharge or prima facie stage, adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact, assess the reliability of witnesses, or compare the prosecution case with the defence version.”
The Court then stated the required approach under Section 14A: “Thus, the appellate power under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act must be exercised in harmony with the broader framework of criminal procedure. While the High Court is duty-bound, as a first appellate Court, to independently apply its mind and correct errors committed by the Special Court, it must remain conscious of the stage of the proceedings and the corresponding limits of judicial scrutiny.”
Before concluding, the Court recorded: “To allow a matter to proceed despite the absence of a prima facie case is to expose a person to the strain, stigma, and uncertainty of criminal proceedings without legal necessity. Fidelity to the rule of law requires the Court to remember that the process itself can become the punishment if this responsibility is not exercised with care.” It also stated: “For a litigant or an accused, the Trial Court is not just one level in a hierarchy. It represents the face of the judiciary itself.” And it recorded: “Trial Courts must remain alive to the human consequences of their decisions and to the trust that society places in them.”
The Court directed: “In that view of the matter, the charges upon the accused in so far as the SCST Act stand quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law regarding the other changes framed against the accused. It stands clarified that no part of the consideration made herein shall be construed as a comment on any of the charges other than the provisions of the SCST Act.” Finally, it recorded: “The Criminal appeal is allowed to the above extent.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Varun Tankha, Adv. Mr. Harshit Bari, Adv. Mr. Inder Dev Singh, Adv. Mr. Vipul Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Divyani Deepti, Adv. Ms. Divya Goyal, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Kushagra Singh, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv.
Case Title: Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 141
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10711 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
