Hearing victim, dependent in case under SC/ST Act mandatory: Supreme Court

A victim under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) or his dependent, should be mandatorily heard in any proceeding under the SC/ST Act as provided in Section 15A of the Act, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday (Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan & anr)..The condition under Section 15A to hear victim or his dependent in any proceeding for bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence is an important mandate under the Act and should be strictly construed and enforced, the top court said, setting aside the bail order passed by the Rajasthan High Court."The requirement of issuing notice of a court proceeding to a victim or a dependent under Section 15A (3), in order to provide them an opportunity of being heard, is mandatory, finds echo in multiple High Court decisions including a decision of the Rajasthan High Court. We find ourselves in agreement with the proposition and hold that sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A are mandatory in nature," the Court stated..A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna, observed that in the instant case, the appellant (dependent of the victim) was not given notice when single-judge of Rajasthan High Court allowed the application of bail. When the appellant instituted a plea for the cancellation of bail, the single judge erroneously held that the procedural lapse during the bail hearing is inconsequential since the appellant was given an opportunity to be heard during the proceedings for cancellation of bail.The Supreme Court, however, disagreed."We cannot agree with the finding of the Single Judge that the defect in not issuing notice to the victim or their dependent and depriving them of the opportunity to be heard in the concerned proceedings (for grant of bail) can be cured by providing them a hearing in a proceeding that arose subsequently (for cancellation of bail). Compliance with the principles of natural justice must be observed at every stage under the mandate of the statute," the apex court opined.The Court further noted that atrocities against SC/STs are not a thing of the past and continue to be a reality even today. "Hence, the statutory provisions which have been enacted by Parliament as a measure of protecting the constitutional rights of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes must be complied with and enforced conscientiously. There has been an evident breach of the statutory requirements embodied in sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A in the present case," the Court concluded..Apart from the procedural issues, the Court also noted that there had been no application of mind on the part of the single-judge who used the "in the facts and circumstances" formula to escape recording of reasons for his judgment. "Recording of reasons by a judge is not a task in formality, but an exercise of judicial accountability and transparency, which makes the decision available for further scrutiny at the touchstone of reason and justice...There is absolutely no reasoning in the order of the High Court granting bail, after recording the submissions of the first respondent’s counsel apart from noting that the public prosecutor had opposed the bail," the Bench observed. .The Bench, therefore, set aside the bail granted by the High Court via order dated November 7, 2019 and directed Satyanarayan, the first respondent to surrender before November 7, 2021..[Read Judgment]