The Allahabad High Court has sought an explanation from a Trial Judge in Aligarh for summoning an accused under a non-existent provision of the SC/ST Act, highlighting a potential violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21, pointing casual exercise of judicial power.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: In an order highlighting judicial accountability, the Allahabad High Court seeks an explanation from a Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Aligarh, after it was alleged that the judge cited a non-existent provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, while summoning an accused in a criminal case.
The order was passed by a Bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri in Rajan Bajaj v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, where the Court observed that such a casual exercise of judicial power has serious consequences for personal liberty, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The controversy arose from a summoning order dated April 30, 2024, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh, whereby the accused was summoned under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 504 (intentional insult) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act.
However, the accused pointed out that no provision titled Section 3(2)(5) exists under the SC/ST Act. While the Act contains Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va), the provision cited in the summoning order was legally invalid.
Taking serious note of this error, the High Court remarked that such a mechanical invocation of penal provisions directly impacts the fundamental rights of an accused.
The dispute originated when the opposite party No. 2 (complainant) approached the Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, under Section 156(3) CrPC, seeking registration of an FIR.
Following the Magistrate’s direction:
- An FIR was registered under the IPC and the SC/ST Act provisions.
- After the investigation, the police submitted a closure report, exonerating the accused and finding no prima facie case.
- The complainant filed a protest petition, following which the Special Judge treated the matter as a complaint case.
Statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC were recorded, and the impugned summoning order was passed.
ALSO READ: Caste-Based Abuse Over Phone Does Not Attract SC/ST Act: Calcutta High Court
The accused contended before the High Court that the criminal proceedings were maliciously initiated to exert pressure in a civil dispute.
According to the applicant, the dispute has its roots in a property matter. He submitted that the land in question had been acquired and allotted to him by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC), Aligarh, after the area was declared an industrial area.
Therefore, if any grievance existed, it was essentially between the complainant and UPSIDC and not with the applicant. It was further contended that the criminal proceedings under the SC/ST Act were initiated solely with the intention of pressurizing and harassing the applicant in connection with the said property dispute.
Another critical issue highlighted was the failure to properly comply with Section 202 CrPC, which mandates a preliminary inquiry or investigation when the accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.
The High Court observed that the Special Judge appeared to have ignored these statutory safeguards, despite the earlier closure report submitted by the police.
Expressing serious concern, Justice Praveen Kumar Giri directed:
“The present Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh as well as the then Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh, who passed the summoning order dated April 30, 2024, are directed to submit their explanation as to why the summoning order was passed in such a casual manner, violating the fundamental right of the applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The explanation is to be submitted through the Registrar (Compliance) on or before January 30, 2026, the next date of hearing.
Granting interim relief, the High Court ordered:
- Issuance of notice to the complainant to file a counter-affidavit.
- Communication of the order through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), and the concerned police station.
- Abeyance of any warrants issued against the accused until the next hearing.
“Till then, if any warrant has been issued against the applicant, the same shall be kept in abeyance,”
the Court directed.
Case Title:
Rajan Bajaj v. State of UP and Anr
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. – 814 of 2026
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read More Reports On SC/ST Act
