Purposive Interpretation Necessary: High Court at Calcutta Clarifies Arbitration Scope “If the Testimony is True, We Act on It”: Kerala High Court Upholds Convictions in Divakaran Murder Case State Cannot Utilize Private Land Without Legal Acquisition and Compensation: High Court Upholds Lower Courts’ Rulings Delhi High Court Stresses ‘Procedure is the Handmaid of Justice’ in Allowing New Evidence in IFFCO TOKIO Case Mere Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Allahabad High Court Acquits Rajveer Singh in Murder Case Non-Compliance with Labor Laws Cannot Deny Compensation for Informal Workers: Bombay High Court in Motor Accident Case Limitation Period Starts from Fraud Discovery, Not Sale Execution,” Rules Andhra Pradesh High Court Testamentary Court’s Role is Limited to Verifying Testamentary Disposition: Calcutta High Court Declares Appellant Cannot Say at One Time That a Process Is Valid to Gain an Advantage and Then Turn Around and Say It Is Invalid When the Result Is Unfavorable,” Rules High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh A humane approach is warranted in cases involving senior citizens: High Court Grants Relief in Bank Loan Recovery Case, Allows Installment Repayments Compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act is Mandatory”: High Court Acquits Accused in Ganja Case Unregistered Lease Deed Admissible Under Section 90 Evidence Act: Orissa High Court Restores Permanent Injunction Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used as "Backdoor Appeal" to Introduce New Evidence in Land Acquisition Cases: Supreme Court Payment Under Minimum Wages Act Does Not Establish Employment Relationship: High Court on Res Judicata in Labour Court Proceedings Taxation Law | Reopening Assessment Beyond Four Years Requires Proof of Failure to Disclose: Delhi High Court Rigors of Section 37 Cannot Override Medical Priority: Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail on Medical Grounds in NDPS Case Consumer Law | Mere Deterioration of Condition Post-Surgery Does Not Imply Medical Negligence Without Proof of Lack of Skill or Care: Supreme Court Supreme Court Declares Accessibility Rules for Disabled Must Be Mandatory, Strikes Down Voluntary Standards as "Ultra Vires" Court's Role Under Section 11(6A) is Limited to Verifying Existence of Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Refers Dispute to Arbitration Section 37 of the Partnership Act Entitles Outgoing Partner to Profits Derived from Firm Assets Post-Dissolution Until Final Settlement: Supreme Court Media Cannot Act as a Parallel Court: Kerala High Court Examines Media’s Right to Report Pending Criminal Cases and Court Proceedings

Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Charge: No Allegation Must Match Specific Legal Criteria

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling  has quashed the charges framed under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against Shashikant Sharma & Ors. In their appeal against the State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. This decision is pivotal in the context of how charges under the SC/ST Act are to be framed and assessed.

Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, presiding over the case, emphasized a crucial legal standard in their judgment: “There must be an allegation that the accused, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, committed an offence under the IPC punishable for a term of 10 years or more against a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe knowing that such person belongs to such ‘community’.”

The appeal challenged the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Special Judge under SC/ST(PoA) Act in Hathras, which had upheld the charges under both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the SC/ST Act. The appellants argued against the validity of the charges, particularly under the SC/ST Act.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, found that the allegations did not sufficiently indicate that the offences were committed with the specific knowledge that the victim was a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The Court’s ruling underscores the importance of meeting every legal requirement for framing a charge under the SC/ST Act.

The judgment maintains that the trial for other IPC offences will proceed in the relevant Court of Sessions. This landmark ruling brings into focus the necessity of precise and legally sound allegations to uphold charges under specialized laws like the SC/ST Act, setting a precedent for future cases.

Date of Decision: 1st December 2023

SHASHIKANT SHARMA & ORS. VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Similar News