SC/ST Act | Special Court Considering Protest Complaint Must Verify Police Refer Report, Pass Reasoned Order: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has clarified that a Special Court considering a protest complaint alleging offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act must pass a reasoned order after verifying the refer report filed by the Investigating Officer so as to either accept or reject the same.
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering an appeal challenging the Special Court's order taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/STAct.
The complainant in the case filed a private complaint before the police and after investigation, the investigating officer filed a refer report before the Special Court requesting to drop the proceedings. The complainant received notice of the refer charge, and preferred a protest complaint.
Considering the protest complaint, the Special Court passed an order, which is presently being challenged to be insufficient. He also challenged the constitutionality of 2nd proviso to Section 14A(3) of the Act as amended in 2018.
The complainant also appeared before the High Court opposing the appeal. He argued that even though the order is not exhaustive, there is prima facie satisfaction of the commission of the offence. It was also contended that the order was passed after recording of 5 witnesses produced by him.
With respect to the question of constitutionality of the provision, it was argued that that the prayer is infructuous. It was pointed out that the decision in Noushad V.T.K. v. State of Kerala [2023 (6) KHC 172] already held that Section 14A(3), which curtailed filing of appeals after 180 days, was unconstitutional in view of the Allahabad High Court's Full Bench decision in in Re: Provision of S.14(a) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
After perusing the impugned order, the Court was of the opinion that the order does not contain any reference to the materials relied on to arrive at a prima facie conclusion regarding commission of offences. It added:
“It is well settled law that when a final report with request to drop the proceedings would be filed by the Investigating Officer after investigation, despite issuance of notice to the complainant or the aggrieved person concerned, the court has a duty to verify the report with a view to either accept or reject the same, or to order further investigation, as the case may be. In the instant case, no such procedure is seen to have been adopted, as the same could not be discernible from…order. That apart,...order is also a blanket and cryptic order without reasons. When serious offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, viz., 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), are alleged, the Special Court should pass a reasonable order justifying the cognizance and a cryptic order simply taking cognizance would not suffice the said purpose. That apart, the stand taken by the Special Judge on the refer report is also could not be discernible from the order.”
Addressing the challenged provision's constitutionality, the Court opined that the decision in Noushad V.T.K has to be followed. It remarked:
“Indubitably, curtailing the right of appeal beyond the period of limitation and making non- application of the Limitation Act even without specifically providing a period by which the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, on showing sufficient reasons, within an extended time is not justifiable. Therefore, the law as held in Noushad V.T.K.'s case (supra) is to be followed and at present, Section 14A(3) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018 continues as unconstitutional.”
Thus, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Special Court was asked to consider the matter afresh and to pass a speaking order justifying the cognizance, or otherwise, in the interest of justice, following the procedure laid down in Cr.P.C.
Case No: Crl. A. No. 2285 of 2025
Case Title: Nisha V. Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 100
Counsel for the appellant: Arun Chand, Pramod S.K., Vinayak G. Menon, Thareeq Anver, Bharat Vijay P., Minu Vittorria Paulson, Archana P.P., Shehroon Patel A.K.
Counsel for the respondent: K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan – R3, N.P. Asha – Public Prosecutor