Supreme Court: SC/ST Act Administrative Enquiry Mandatory for Public Servants

• The Supreme Court has ruled that an administrative enquiry is mandatory before initiating proceedings against public servants under the SC/ST Act, 1989.
• This decision led to the quashing of an FIR against a Deputy Superintendent of Police and a Sub Inspector in Tamil Nadu, as no such enquiry was conducted.
• The Court emphasized that the proviso to Section 4 of the SC/ST Act requires this preliminary step for public servants.
• The case involved a special court directing FIR registration despite a preliminary police enquiry finding the complaint false.

For public servants accused under this stringent law, a preliminary administrative enquiry is not merely discretionary but an indispensable step before any formal prosecution can commence.

The Supreme Court has recently established a crucial procedural requirement, mandating an administrative enquiry before any proceedings can be initiated against public servants under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This significant ruling led to the quashing of criminal proceedings that had been launched against a Deputy Superintendent of Police and a Sub Inspector in Tamil Nadu.

Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, presiding over the bench, highlighted that the special court had erroneously directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) without adhering to this essential pre-condition, which is explicitly outlined in the proviso to Section 4 of the SC/ST Act. The decision underscores the importance of this preliminary step for public servant protection under the SC/ST Act in India.

The case originated from a complaint filed under the SC/ST Act against two individuals. A preliminary enquiry conducted by a Sub Inspector concluded that the allegations were unfounded, suggesting they were fabricated to counter an existing civil dispute. This finding was subsequently approved by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, leading to the initial decision not to register an FIR.

Dissatisfied, the complainant then approached a special court, invoking Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (which replaced Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on July 1, 2024). Following this, the matter was referred back to the police. The complainant later filed a second petition with the special court, alleging dereliction of duty under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act. This second petition prompted the special court to direct the registration of an FIR on December 18, 2025, at Puthanatham police station in Trichy district, under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and the corresponding sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (which replaced the Indian Penal Code on July 1, 2024). The High Court subsequently declined to intervene, prompting the appellants, Jananipriya and another, to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Before the apex court, counsel for the appellants cited several key Supreme Court precedents, including *Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra* (2018), *Union of India v State of Maharashtra* (2020), and *Prithvi Raj Chauhan v Union of India & Ors* (2020). Their argument hinged on the principle that while the *Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan* judgment had undergone review, the subsequent *Prithvi Raj Chauhan* decision affirmed that Section 18A of the SC/ST Act must be interpreted in harmony with the guidelines established in *Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh* (2014).

Conversely, the State contended that these precedents were no longer applicable, given that Section 4 of the SC/ST Act was incorporated in 2016 and Section 18A in 2018, both predating the alleged offense of non-registration of the FIR. The State emphasized the sensitive nature of allegations concerning atrocities against a member of a Scheduled Caste, asserting that an FIR should have been registered. It also acknowledged that a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court had deemed the proviso to Section 4 mandatory in *State of GNCT of Delhi v Praveen Kumar alias Prashanth* (2024), suggesting that the present case could be remanded to the special court if the administrative enquiry was indeed missing.

This ruling by the Supreme Court significantly impacts criminal law in India, particularly concerning the SC/ST Act administrative enquiry public servants mandatory requirement. By quashing the proceedings, the Court has reinforced the procedural safeguard embedded within the proviso to Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

It clarifies that for public servants accused under this stringent law, a preliminary administrative enquiry is not merely discretionary but an indispensable step before any formal prosecution can commence. This decision provides crucial protection for public servants, ensuring that allegations are properly vetted through an internal process before criminal action is initiated, thereby preventing premature or unwarranted legal proceedings.

This ruling establishes a crucial procedural safeguard for public servants accused under the SC/ST Act, requiring a mandatory administrative enquiry before initiating proceedings. Lawyers representing public servants should leverage this precedent to challenge premature FIRs or prosecutions, while those advising complainants or government departments must ensure strict adherence to this pre-prosecution step.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlets.