Judicial process itself can become punishment if misused: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said fidelity to the rule of law requires the court to remember that the process itself can become the punishment if this responsibility is not exercised with care as it quashed the charges of caste-based violence against a whistleblower in the Madhya Pradesh VYAPAM examination scam.

Anand Rai had challenged the Madhya Pradesh High Court order upholding the framing of charges in a case of caste-based atrocities arising from alleged violence and abuse against an MP, MLA and government officials during a rally in 2022.

A bench of justices Sajay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh which quashed the charges under SC/ST Act against Rai said the court must consciously distinguish between a genuine case that warrants a trial and one that rests only on suspicion or assumption or for that matter without any basis.

"To allow a matter to proceed despite the absence of a prima facie case is to expose a person to the strain, stigma, and uncertainty of criminal proceedings without legal necessity. Fidelity to the rule of law requires the Court to remember that the process itself can become the punishment if this responsibility is not exercised with care," the top court said.

The verdict, which was pronounced by the bench on Tuesday but was uploaded on Wednesday said that at the stage of framing of charge or considering discharge, the court is not dealing with an abstract legal exercise.

"It is dealing with real people, real anxieties, and the real weight of criminal prosecution. Judicial responsibility at this stage calls for care, balance, and an honest engagement with the facts on record. The power to frame a charge is not meant to be exercised by default or out of caution alone," it said.

The top court said when the material placed before the court, taken at face value, does not disclose the ingredients of an offence, the law expects the court to have the clarity and courage to say so and to keep such a case aside.

"This responsibility weighs heaviest on trial courts, which are the first courts most people ever step into. For a litigant or an accused, the trial court is not just one level in a hierarchy. It represents the face of the judiciary itself.

"The sensitivity, fairness, and legal discipline shown at this stage shape how ordinary citizens understand justice. The impression a trial court creates, through its approach to facts and law, often becomes the impression people carry of the entire judicial system. That is why, at every stage and especially at the threshold, trial courts must remain alive to the human consequences of their decisions and to the trust that society places in them," the top court said.

Dealing with the case, the bench said for a charge under the provisions of the SCST Act to be established, several elements must be present.

The bench said under the SC/ST Act the accused must have knowledge that the victim belongs to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or that the property belongs to such a person.

"In view of the requirements of the sections proposed to be charged..., we are at a loss to understand that when the trial court itself acknowledges that none of the statements under Section 161 CrPC, state the specific slurs uttered by the accused with the intent to insult threaten or kill, then how is it found, on the same bundle of evidence, and with the same level of scrutiny thereof, that the alleged acts of the accused were informed by caste awareness.

"There does not appear to be any other material on record either, to establish knowledge on part of the accused. Once the knowledge on part of the alleged offender is in question, it is but certain that the charge cannot stand," the top court said.

The bench said curiously, the impugned judgment of the high court, although running into eighteen pages, does not deal at all with the charge under SC/ST Act and all that is said, is that the trial court has 'assigned elaborate reasons'.

"As demonstrated above, those reasons are lacking and insufficient. Only for the reason that on a facial analysis of the evidence placed on record, some of the charges of the IPC, appear to be met, the SC/ST sections have also been charged against the accused," it said, adding that there is also no averment whatsoever that the complainant was a member of the SC/ST community.

The bench ordered that the charges upon the accused in so far as the SC/ST Act stand quashed and remitted the matter back to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law regarding the other changes framed against the accused.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Sumeer Sodhi appeared for Rai, an ophthalmologist from Madhya Pradesh and one of the whistleblowers in the VYAPAM examination scam.

The incident took place on November 15, 2022, at village Dharad in Madhya Pradesh's Ratlam district during a programme organised on the occasion of Birsa Munda Jayanti for the unveiling of a statue of Bhagwan Birsa Munda.

It was alleged that Rai stopped the vehicles of a MP, an MLA, the collector and other officials. The FIR lodged by a person called Vikas Pargi alleged that a group blocked the road for nearly one hour, abused the lawmakers and engaged in a scuffle with police personnel who attempted to clear the way.