Category: SC/ST

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 4(2) – The Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy (OREA) is facing disputes over allegations of caste-based discrimination and other complaints filed against trainees and administrators – The main issue is whether the complaints filed under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were substantiated and whether FIRs should be registered – The appellants argued that the complaints were not made in public view and lacked specific details, thus not constituting offenses under the Act of 1989 – The respondent claimed that the complaints were ignored by the police and not investigated as mandated by the Act of 1989 – The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, upholding the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order that dismissed the application for FIR registration under the Act of 1989 – The court found the allegations vague, did not specify the offenses, and were not made in public view – The impugned judgment of the High Court directing the registration of an FIR was set aside.

2024 INSC 437 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRITI AGARWALLA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 306 – Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(v) – Abetment of suicide – Necessary ingredients – This court ruled that the charge under the SC/ST Act was unwarranted because the prosecution did not allege that the offence under the IPC was committed based on the deceased’s caste – The court also found that the allegations in the suicide note were not sufficient to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC – Appeal Allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRABHAT KUMAR MISHRA @ PRABHAT MISHRA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep…

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(xi) – The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had assaulted the victim with the intention of dishonouring or outraging her modesty, as required under Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act – The Court also held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused belonged to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DASHRATH SAHU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(2)(v) and 14A(1) – – Acquittal -There must be an allegation that the accused not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe committed an offence under the IPC punishable for a term of 10 years or more against a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe knowing that such person belongs to such ‘community’

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHASHIKANT SHARMA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta,…

S C and S T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – S 14A(1) – (CrPC) – S 319 courts satisfaction preceding the order thereunder must be more than prima facie as formed at the stage of a charge being framed and short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction – Summoning order upheld – Appeal dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JITENDRA NATH MISHRA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 504 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(i)(x) – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Sections 3 and 11 – Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition – HELD this Court under the 1958 Act itself can pass an order at this stage – It appropriate that the appellant may be released instead of carrying out the sentence after due admonition

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KUNTI KUMARI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.