Summoning order under SC/ST Act deemed procedurally flawed, violating Article 21 of the Constitution
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has criticized the summoning order issued by a Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, highlighting procedural irregularities that infringe upon the fundamental rights of the accused. The judgment, delivered by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri on January 14, 2026, pertains to the case of Rajan Bajaj v. State of U.P., where the summoning order against the applicant, Rajan Bajaj, was passed without adhering to the mandatory procedural requirements outlined in Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
The court observed that the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh, failed to conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation to verify the facts before issuing the summoning order, thereby violating the procedural safeguards intended to protect the accused's right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The summoning order, dated April 30, 2024, called for the applicant to be summoned under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act, which was later noted as a non-existent provision under the act.
The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural mandates, especially when the accused does not fall under the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The court has sought explanations from both the present and former Special Judges of the SC/ST Act, Aligarh, for their casual approach in passing the summoning order. The judges are directed to submit their explanations through the Registrar (Compliance) of the Allahabad High Court by January 30, 2026.
The court also issued notices to the opposite party, Rampal, and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, as well as the concerned Special Judge, to communicate the order. Furthermore, the Assistant Government Advocate, Shri Shashidhar Pandey, has been instructed to convey the order to the opposite party through the concerned police station.
In a protective measure, the court has ordered that any warrant issued against the applicant, Rajan Bajaj, be kept in abeyance until further hearings scheduled for January 30, 2026. This decision highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural justice and safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals, ensuring that judicial processes are conducted with due diligence and fairness.
Bottom Line:
Special Judge, SC/ST Act must adhere to procedural requirements under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before summoning an accused, especially when the accused does not fall under the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution must be safeguarded.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(2)(va), 3(2)(5), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 202.
Rajan Bajaj v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2838660
