Supreme Court Stays Arrest Of HLL Biotech CEO In SC/ST Act Case Over Alleged Denial Of Maternity Benefits

The Supreme Court recently stayed the arrest of Vijay Sistla, CEO of HLL Biotech Limited (PSU), in a case alleging discrimination under the SC/ST Act 1989 by an employee. The bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti passed the interim order while issuing notice to the respondents on his Special Leave Petition. The petitioner is challenging the order of the Madras High Court, which refused to grant him anticipatory bail for the charges under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1988. It is alleged that the petitioner deliberately and discriminately turned down the maternity leave of his junior, the complainant, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, after she gave birth to a child on May 8, 2025. The complainant alleges that while other colleagues were granted the maternity benefits, like the one-year Child Care Leave (CCL), she was harassed and not extended the same. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contends that the FIR has been registered with a personal vendetta. He claims that an earlier complaint against him was made by her in 2023, which was inquired into by a Fact-Finding Committee constituted by the HBL Board, and the Petitioner was exonerated by a report dated 02.11.2023 submitted to the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health – Government of India. It further adds that " the timing and tenor of the FIR, which is lodged after nearly three years and immediately following the denial of a leave request for one year which is not in his delegation of powers, reflects a palpably false complaint actuated by private vendetta." The plea relies on the decision in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala & Anr where it is held that even where the FIR is registered under the SC/ST Act, if the complaint is palpably false on account of political or private vendetta, the Court must still consider the plea for anticipatory bail despite the statutory bar of Section 18, and that the Court must not shy away from conducting a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the narration of facts in the complaint genuinely discloses the commission of an offence under the Act. For the petitioners - Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR, Ms. Kamla Kumar, Adv. Mr. Md Imran Ahmad, AdvCase Details : VIJAY KUMAR SISTLA vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU| SLP(Crl) No. 018448 - / 2025Click Here To Read/Download Order

Supreme Court Stays Arrest Of HLL Biotech CEO In SC/ST Act Case Over Alleged Denial Of Maternity Benefits

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags