Allahabad High Court Demands Explanation from Aligarh Judge Over Legal Blunder
The Allahabad High Court has taken a serious step. It has formally sought an explanation from a trial judge posted in Aligarh. The judge faces allegations of citing a provision of law that simply does not exist.
A Non-Existent Legal Clause
This controversy centers on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In an order dated April 30, 2024, the then special judge for the SC/ST Act in Aligarh invoked "Section 3(2)(5)" of the Act. Legal counsel in the High Court later pointed out a critical flaw. This specific section does not exist within the actual statute. The judge referenced a phantom clause.
High Court Intervenes and Halts Proceedings
The accused in the case, Rajiv Bajaj, challenged this problematic order in the Allahabad High Court. Justice Praveen Kumar Giri presided over the matter. On January 14, the court issued a directive. It demanded an explanation from the special judge and scheduled the next hearing for January 30.
Justice Giri also passed an important interim order. He stated that if any arrest warrant had been issued against the applicant, Rajiv Bajaj, it must be kept in abeyance until further notice. The court expressed grave concern over the casual exercise of judicial power. It observed that such careless orders have severe consequences for an individual's personal liberty.
Background of the Property Dispute Case
According to Rajiv Bajaj's application, he was falsely implicated under the SC/ST Act. He claims the criminal proceedings stem from a property dispute. The dispute began after he was allotted a piece of land declared as industrial by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation.
A complainant accused Bajaj of assault and offences under the SC/ST Act. Following this, the judicial magistrate in Aligarh directed the police to register a First Information Report (FIR). The police complied and registered an FIR under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act. After investigation, the police concluded that no prima facie case was made out against the accused.
Dissatisfied with this closure report, the complainant approached the special court. The complainant filed a petition challenging the police's decision to close the case. The special judge 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. Subsequently, based on this process, the special judge summoned Rajiv Bajaj to face trial, citing the incorrect and non-existent provision.
This sequence of events has now led to the High Court's scrutiny. The court's action highlights the critical need for precision and diligence in judicial orders, especially when they impact fundamental rights like personal liberty.
