Allahabad High Court Demands Explanation from Aligarh Judge Over Legal Blunder
The Allahabad High Court has taken a firm stance against judicial negligence. It has called for a detailed explanation from a trial judge in Aligarh. This judge allegedly cited a provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 that does not actually exist in the law.
Court Questions Casual Approach to Fundamental Rights
Justice Praveen Kumar Giri issued this directive while hearing a petition filed by Rajiv Bajaj. The court expressed serious concern over how judicial power was exercised in this case. It observed that such casual and careless orders can have grave consequences for an individual's personal liberty.
The High Court specifically directed both the current and former special judges handling SC/ST Act cases in Aligarh to submit their explanations. They must clarify why the summoning order dated April 30, 2024 was passed in such a manner. The court noted this approach violated the applicant's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
Non-Existent Legal Provision Cited
The petitioner's counsel argued that the trial court's order was illegal and unsustainable. The judge had invoked "Section 3(2)(5)" of the SC/ST Act during the summoning process. However, this specific provision does not exist within the actual statute. This error formed the core of the legal challenge.
Rajiv Bajaj, the applicant, claimed he was falsely implicated in a case under the SC/ST Act. He stated the criminal proceedings stemmed from a property dispute. The dispute arose after he was allotted a piece of land declared as industrial land by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC). According to Bajaj, the complainant initiated criminal proceedings solely to exert pressure on him regarding this property matter.
Background of the Case
The original complaint accused Bajaj of offences under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, alongside charges under the SC/ST Act. Following the complainant's application, the Judicial Magistrate in Aligarh directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).
Police subsequently registered the FIR under relevant IPC and SC/ST Act provisions and conducted an investigation. Their investigation concluded that no prima facie case was made out against the accused. Dissatisfied with this closure report, the complainant filed a petition to challenge it.
The special judge (SC/ST Act) in Aligarh then treated the matter as a complaint case. The judge proceeded to record the statements of the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Following this, the Special Judge issued summons for the accused to face trial, leading to the current High Court challenge.
Interim Relief and Next Steps
Justice Giri's order, dated January 14, provides interim relief to the petitioner. The court fixed January 30 as the next date of hearing. It also directed that if any warrant has been issued against the applicant, it shall be kept in abeyance until that hearing. This ensures the applicant's personal liberty is protected while the court examines the serious allegations of judicial error.
