[SC/ST Act] Courts Duty To Ensure Social Welfare Legislations Are Not Misused & False Complaints Are Not Perpetuated: Delhi High Court

While quashing a First Information Report (FIR) under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('PoA Act'), the Delhi High Court remarked that such welfare legislations should not be misused for ulterior motives and that the court has to ensure that false complaints are not allowed to continue.Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma commented, “The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been enacted with the purpose of safeguarding vulnerable sections of society from humiliation and harassment and ensuring that perpetrators of such offences are brought to book and subjected to harsh punishment. However, at the same time, the Courts have to be careful that such legislatures, which are enacted with social welfare in mind, should not be put to any misuse. Such legislation should be implemented with purity and for right purpose ruling out any misuse for ulterior motives. Thus, while the Courts has a pious duty to protect the rights of individuals belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it is equally essential to ensure that false or frivolous complaints are not made and if made should not be allowed to perpetuate.”The Court was considering petitions of three doctors to quash FIR against them under Section 3 of the PoA Act (punishment for offences of atrocities).The complainant/respondent no. 2 alleged that the petitioner engaged in a concerted effort rooted in caste-based bias and personal vendetta to harass, defame and obstruct his promotion to the post of Director/ Head of the Institute of Orthopaedics. It was alleged that Dr Singh, one of the petitioners, former Director and Head of the Central Institute of Orthopaedics at Safdarjung Hospital, issued an order that authorised only the other two petitioners, who are junior to the complainant, to handle arthroscopic instruments. The complainant stated that despite his extensive experience in arthroscopic surgery, he was deliberately excluded from this authorization, which undermined his professional status and expertise. The complainant filed a complaint with the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, GOI alleging that Dr Singh showed favoritism towards the other two petitioners. Pursuant to this, Dr Singh sent letters to the Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The complainant alleged that Dr. Singh's letters were defamatory and falsely alleged complainant's incompetence. Aggrieved by these letters, the complainant approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. However, the Commission closed the case on the ground that the allegations could not be substantiated. The complainant further submitted that the petitioners arranged for an Aaj Tak media team to visit the Orthopaedics department in order to defame him. It was also alleged that due to Dr. Singh's false complaint before a Broad-Based Committee, the complaint was transferred to Department of Rehabilitation against the Recruitment rules. Furthermore, in proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the transfer order was upheld. Considering the facts of the case, the High Court remarked, “In the present case, it is very unfortunate that the senior doctors are engaged in a prolonged dispute spanning over two decades. The records reveal a pattern of allegations and counter-allegations between the complainant and the petitioners.” The Court noted that the National Commission for Scheduled Caste's closed the case as it did not find any substance in the complaint. It also noted that orders of the Broad-Based Committee and CAT Indicate that the complainant did not raise any caste-based issues in these proceedings.It observed that the complainant's transfer orders already underwent judicial scrutiny and that the findings of the three committees was not frivolous. It thus stated that no harm or injury was caused to the complainant on account of the alleged communication of Dr. A.K. Singh.The Court opined that as the complainant did not any desired relief from the CAT and the National Commission, he filed the present complaint, based on which the FIR was lodged. It noted that the complainant filed a Protest Petition before the Magistrate after the police filed a closure report. The Magistrate ordered reinvestigation of the matter and after the reinvestigation, the police filed a cancellation report. When the complaint filed another protest petition, the Magistrate summoned the petitioners. The Court was of the view that the Trial Court's order summoning the petitioners was incorrect. It stated that the allegations did not satisfy the requirements of 3(1)(ix) PoA Act.It observed, “In the present case, the alleged communication was written by Dr. A.K. Singh. The allegations against Dr. Manoj Kumar and Dr. Deepak Chaudhary are based on their alleged conspiracy with Dr. A.K. Singh either by facilitating the entry of the AAJ Tak team into the Orthopedics Department or by spreading...

[SC/ST Act] Courts Duty To Ensure Social Welfare Legislations Are Not Misused & False Complaints Are Not Perpetuated: Delhi High Court

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags