# Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr

- **Citation:** 2026 INSC 141
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2026-02-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 814 of 2026
- **Bench:** Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dr-anand-rai-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-anr-39156
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

Issue arose as regards the correctness of the judgment of High
Court wherein it dismissed the accused's appeal against the order
of the Special Judge whereby his prayer for discharge u/s.227
CrPC was allowed in part arising out of proceedings wherein
charges were framed against him under IPC and s.3(2)(v),
3(2)(va) SC/ST Act.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.227 - Discharge under -
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) - Altercation
and scuffle in a gathering - Registration of FIR - Discharge
application filed by the accused - Trial court partly allowed
the application - However, the High Court dismissed the
appeal - Correctness:
Held: For a charge u/ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act to
be established, several elements must be present - Accused must
first commit an offence under the IPC, which are punishable with
ten or more years of imprisonment, the act must be directed against
a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, or against
property that belongs to them, reflecting the special protection the
law affords to them, and the accused must have knowledge that
the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or that
the property belongs to such a person - On facts, no material on
record to establish knowledge on part of the accused - Impugned
judgment of the High Court, does not deal at all with the charge
under SC/ST Act, it only stated that the trial court 'assigned elaborate
reasons' - Those reasons are lacking and insufficient - Only for
* Author
46
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the reason that on a facial analysis of the evidence placed on
record, some of the charges of the IPC, appear to be met, the
SC/ST Sections have also been charged against the accused -
Apparent evidence on record no way sufficient for facial analysis
of the case at hand, or enough to distinguish suspicion from grave
suspicion - No averment whatsoever that the complainant was a
member of the SC/ST Community - Complaint, and subsequent
statements u/s.161 CrPC, both, appear to be lacking in averments
for caste motivated acts allegations, one where intent is absent,
and the other where knowledge is apparently present, seems
difficult to accept - High Court in deciding the appeal against
the partial order of discharge, not carried out its duty as the
first court of appeal - Charges upon the accused in so far as
the SC/ST Act quashed - Matter remitted back to the trial court.
[Paras 10, 14-16, 20]
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - s.14A - Appeal - Powers of High Court
as appellate court:
Held: s.14A does not curtail or dilute the ordinary appellate powers
of the High Court - High Court does not function as a revisional or
supervisory Court while exercising jurisdiction u/s.14-A but assumes
the role of a first appellate court - Mechanical affirmation of the
order of the Special Court, without independent scrutiny, would
thus, be inconsistent with settled appellate jurisprudence and would
amount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction - When the generally
applicable principles are applied to an appeal u/s.14-A arising
from a threshold order, the High Court's role, though appellate in
nature, stands circumscribed by the limits governing discharge -
High Court may examine whether the allegations disclose the
basic statutory ingredients of the offence under the Act, including
whether the alleged act was committed on account of the victim's
caste and whether other foundational requirements are satisfied -
Where these ingredients are conspicuously absent, interference
is justified, as continuation of proceedings would amount to an
abuse of the process of law - Even while exercising first appellate
jurisdiction, High Court cannot, at the discharge or prima facie stage,
adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact, assess the reliability
of witnesses, or compare the prosecution case with the defence
ver

## Text

_Characters 0–39,873 of 49,958. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39873 for what follows._

[2026] 3 S.C.R. 45 : 2026 INSC 141
Dr. Anand Rai
v.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 814 of 2026)
10 February 2026
[Sanjay Karol* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the judgment of High
Court wherein it dismissed the accused's appeal against the order
of the Special Judge whereby his prayer for discharge u/s.227
CrPC was allowed in part arising out of proceedings wherein
charges were framed against him under IPC and s.3(2)(v),
3(2)(va) SC/ST Act.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.227 - Discharge under -
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) - Altercation
and scuffle in a gathering - Registration of FIR - Discharge
application filed by the accused - Trial court partly allowed
the application - However, the High Court dismissed the
appeal - Correctness:
Held: For a charge u/ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act to
be established, several elements must be present - Accused must
first commit an offence under the IPC, which are punishable with
ten or more years of imprisonment, the act must be directed against
a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, or against
property that belongs to them, reflecting the special protection the
law affords to them, and the accused must have knowledge that
the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or that
the property belongs to such a person - On facts, no material on
record to establish knowledge on part of the accused - Impugned
judgment of the High Court, does not deal at all with the charge
under SC/ST Act, it only stated that the trial court 'assigned elaborate
reasons' - Those reasons are lacking and insufficient - Only for
* Author
46
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the reason that on a facial analysis of the evidence placed on
record, some of the charges of the IPC, appear to be met, the
SC/ST Sections have also been charged against the accused -
Apparent evidence on record no way sufficient for facial analysis
of the case at hand, or enough to distinguish suspicion from grave
suspicion - No averment whatsoever that the complainant was a
member of the SC/ST Community - Complaint, and subsequent
statements u/s.161 CrPC, both, appear to be lacking in averments
for caste motivated acts allegations, one where intent is absent,
and the other where knowledge is apparently present, seems
difficult to accept - High Court in deciding the appeal against
the partial order of discharge, not carried out its duty as the
first court of appeal - Charges upon the accused in so far as
the SC/ST Act quashed - Matter remitted back to the trial court.
[Paras 10, 14-16, 20]
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - s.14A - Appeal - Powers of High Court
as appellate court:
Held: s.14A does not curtail or dilute the ordinary appellate powers
of the High Court - High Court does not function as a revisional or
supervisory Court while exercising jurisdiction u/s.14-A but assumes
the role of a first appellate court - Mechanical affirmation of the
order of the Special Court, without independent scrutiny, would
thus, be inconsistent with settled appellate jurisprudence and would
amount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction - When the generally
applicable principles are applied to an appeal u/s.14-A arising
from a threshold order, the High Court's role, though appellate in
nature, stands circumscribed by the limits governing discharge -
High Court may examine whether the allegations disclose the
basic statutory ingredients of the offence under the Act, including
whether the alleged act was committed on account of the victim's
caste and whether other foundational requirements are satisfied -
Where these ingredients are conspicuously absent, interference
is justified, as continuation of proceedings would amount to an
abuse of the process of law - Even while exercising first appellate
jurisdiction, High Court cannot, at the discharge or prima facie stage,
adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact, assess the reliability
of witnesses, or compare the prosecution case with the defence
version - To do so would collapse the distinction between trial and
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
47
Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
threshold scrutiny and would result in a premature determination of
guilt or innocence - Appellate power u/s.14-A must be exercised
in harmony with the broader framework of criminal procedure -
High Court duty bound, as a first appellate Court, to independently
apply its mind and correct errors committed by the Special Court,
it must remain conscious of the stage of the proceedings and the
corresponding limits of judicial scrutiny - This calibrated approach
ensures that the protective object of the SC/ST Act is preserved,
while simultaneously safeguarding against mechanical application
of its provisions in cases where the statutory ingredients are not
even prima facie disclosed. [Paras 18-19]
Criminal law - Stage of framing of charge or discharge -
Power of court:
Held: At the stage of framing of charge or considering discharge,
the Court is not dealing with an abstract legal exercise, rather with
real people, real anxieties, and real weight of criminal prosecution -
Judicial responsibility at this stage calls for care, balance, and an
honest engagement with the facts on record - Power to frame a
charge is not meant to be exercised by default or out of caution
alone - When the material placed before the Court, taken at face
value, does not disclose the ingredients of an offence, the law
expects the Court to keep such a case aside - Discharge is not
a technical indulgence but an essential safeguard - Court must
consciously distinguish between a genuine case that warrants a
trial and one that rests only on suspicion or assumption or for that
matter without any basis - To allow a matter to proceed despite
the absence of a prima facie case is to expose a person to the
strain, stigma, and uncertainty of criminal proceedings without
legal necessity - Fidelity to the rule of law requires the Court to
remember that the process itself can become the punishment if
this responsibility is not exercised with care - This responsibility
weighs heaviest on trial courts, which are the first courts -
Sensitivity, fairness, and legal discipline shown at this stage shape
how ordinary citizens understand justice - Impression a trial court
creates, through its approach to facts and law, often becomes the
impression people carry of the entire judicial system, thus, at every
stage and especially at the threshold, trial courts to remain alive to
the human consequences of their decisions and to the trust that
society places in them. [Para 21]
48
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Discharge -
Change in procedure:
Held: BNSS changes the procedural setting within which this
discretion is exercised - New statute introduces express timelines
for the filing of discharge applications and for framing of charges,
and it expressly recognises the possibility of the accused being
heard or examined through electronic means - Changes are
regulatory in nature, aimed at structuring the process and reducing
delay - Court's obligation to apply its mind to the record, to hear
both sides, to record reasons where discharge is ordered remains
exactly as before, as does the caution against weighing evidence
or conducting a mini trial at the preliminary stages - Jurisprudence
developed under the Cr.P.C. on the scope and limits of consideration
at the stages of discharge and framing of charge continues to hold
the field under the BNSS - Legislature has retained the same
substantive balance between the rights of the accused and the
interest of prosecution, while seeking to impose greater procedural
discipline and expedition - Thus, the power remains the same;
only the manner of its exercise has been more tightly structured.
[Para 11]
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Object of - Elucidated. [Paras 8, 9]
Case Law Cited
State of Bihar v. Anil Kumar [2017] 6 SCR 711 : (2017) 14 SCC
304; Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali [2012] 13 SCR 1005 : (2013) 5 SCC
762; Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of U.P. [2024] 7 SCR 1155 :
(2024) 10 SCC 651; State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao [2003]
Supp. 2 SCR 1060 : (2003) 10 SCC 434; State of M.P. v. Ram
Kishna Balothia [1995] 1 SCR 897 : (1995) 3 SCC 221; Sajjan
Kumar v. CBI [2010] 11 SCR 669 : (2010) 9 SCC 368; Ghulam
Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey [2022] 13 SCR 34 : (2022)
12 SCC 657; Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. [2021] 7 SCR
143 : (2022) 15 SCC 720; Bani Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
[1996] Supp. 3 SCR 247 : (1996) 4 SCC 720; Chandrappa v.
State of Karnataka [2007] 2 SCR 630 : (2007) 4 SCC 415; State
of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [1978] 1 SCR 257 : (1977) 4 SCC 39;
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [1979] 2 SCR 229 : (1979)
3 SCC 4 - referred to.
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
49
Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Penal Code, 1860; Constitution
of India.
List of Keywords
Discharge; Appellate powers of the High Court; Revisional
or supervisory Court; Re-appreciation of evidence; Appellate
jurisdiction; Power to frame charge; Scheduled Caste; Scheduled
Tribe; Change in procedure; Stage of framing of charge or discharge.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
814 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2025 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in CRA No. 3945 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Sumeer Sodhi, Varun Tankha, Harshit Bari,
Inder Dev Singh, Vipul Tiwari, Ms. Divyani Deepti, Ms. Divya Goyal,
Chaitanya Sharma.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Kushagra Singh, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat
Joshi, Astik Gupta, Ms. Akanksha Tomar.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjay Karol, J.
Leave Granted.
2.
This appeal at the instance of the accused calls into question the
correctness of the final judgment and order in Criminal Appeal No.
3945 of 2025, dated 3rd July 2025 by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Indore. In terms of the impugned judgment, the High
50
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Court dismissed the accused's appeal arising out of the proceedings
before the learned Special Judge1, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19892 whereby his prayer for
discharge under Section 2273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
19734, was allowed only in part. The chargesheet that was filed upon
completion of the investigation in FIR No. 0653 of 2022 dated 15th
November 2022 registered at PS Bilpank, District Ratlam. The said
chargesheet, being Chargesheet No.1 of 2023 dated 16th February
2023, sent the matter up for trial against the accused on charges
under Sections 294, 341, 383, 332, 146, 147, 336, 506, 333, 188,
326 of the Indian Penal Code, 18605 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va)
of the SCST Act as amended in 2015 and 2018, whereas charges
were framed against him under the following Sections 147, 341,
427, 353, 332, 333, 326, 323, 352 read with 149 IPC and 3(2)(v),
3(2)(va) of the SCST Act.
3.
The facts that culminated in the position as above were that on 15th
November 2022 while a large congregation of persons had gathered
at Bachhadapara, to witness the unveiling and installation of a statue
of Bhagwan Birsa Munda - the complainant, namely, Vikas, had
witnessed members of JAYS organisation intercept the vehicles of
the members of Parliament and Legislative Assembly, as also other
district officials, who were arriving at the event, and when they were
attempted to be removed by the security, the said persons initiated
an altercation and scuffle with them along with pelting stones at the
vehicles. One security personnel namely Sandeep Chandel suffered
injuries as a result. In the FIR, the persons involved were described
as follows:-
"....due to snatching and pelting of stone by these persons
Gunman of Collector sir has suffered injuries near his
nose and due to that injury blood oozed out. These
persons were not ready to understand anybody's advice
and these were misbehaving with police personnel and
were causing hurdle in government work and they were
1
Hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'
2
Hereinafter referred to as 'SCST Act'
3
SC ATR No. 28/2023
4
Hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'
5
Hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
51
Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
speaking irrelevant things and extending threats of life.
Then me and other police personnel present there have
made a video of all these persons. Out of these persons I
know and identify D. Abhay Ohari Resident of Ratlam, D.
Anand Rai Resident of Ratlam, Kamal Bhuriya Resident of
Dharad, Manoj Parmar Resident of Dharad, Kishan Sighad
Resident of Amleti, Dilip Bhuria Resident of Dharad, Anil
Ninama, Resident of Satrunda, Sanjay Girwal Resident
of Bhati Badodiya, Ajay Son of Kailash Bheel Resident
of Dharad, Vijay Son of Shambhu Lal Bhuria Resident of
Nalkui, Chhagan Lal Son of Choga Lal Meena Resident
of Patrakar Colony Jawra, Mohan Singh Son of Mann
Singh Dewda Resident of Lambi Sadadi Rani Singh
Vilesh Kharadi Resident of Lambi Sadadi Baazna, Gopal
Waghel Resident of Nagra, Gopal Ninama, Resident of
Kundal, Deepak Ninama Resident of Vinobha Nagar,
Ratlam, Chhotu Bhabhar Resident of Jamthun, Jitendra
Katariya Resident of Surajpur and Kalu Baarot Resident of
Shubham Shri Colony Ratlam, 40-50 more persons were
also accompanying them. These persons have jammed
the road for about 01 hours..."
It is also important to note the role of these persons as described
in the chargesheet, which, obviously, is a document that signals
the completion of the investigation. It essentially is a recapitulation
of the statement of the complainant, and it records that during
the investigation statement of the complainant and witnesses was
recorded and after which the accused persons were separately
interrogated and taken into custody upon confession to the crime.
It is important to note that the present accused's vehicle, a Scorpio
that was allegedly used in the incident, was also seized. Another
essential aspect is that the complainant had allegedly video-graphed
the incident and such video was submitted to the police.
4.
The accused sought bail which was rejected by the Trial Court. Such
conclusion was affirmed by the High Court, but then he was granted
bail by this Court on 13th January 2023. Disciplinary proceedings
were also initiated against him, and he received notice thereof from
the Regional Manager, Health Services, Indore Division. These facts
have only been mentioned for completing the factual arc and are
not in issue before us.
52
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
5.
The Trial Court, as we have already observed, partly allowed the
application. The High Court dismissed the appeal thereagainst. The
findings of the High Court are summarised as below along with the
relevant case laws cited by the Court below:

ƒ
First addressed was the appellant's objection regarding the
legality of the investigation, which was alleged to be vitiated
on the ground that it was conducted by an Inspector instead of
a Deputy Superintendent of Police6. Upon examining Section
9 of SCST Act along with the State Government Notification
dated 13th October 2017 and the consequential circular issued
by the Director General of Police, the Court held that the State
Government is expressly empowered to confer powers of
investigation on officers below the rank of DSP for specified
categories of offences. Since the offences registered against the
appellant fell within the ambit of those notified, the investigation
conducted by an Inspector was held to be legally authorised
and not in violation of Rule 7 of the SC/ST Rules, 1995. The
challenge to the investigation was, therefore, found to be without
merit. (State of Bihar v. Anil Kumar7)

ƒ
Thereafter, the Court reiterated the settled legal position
governing the scope of judicial scrutiny at the stage of framing
of charges. It held that, at this preliminary stage, the Court is
not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence
or adjudicate upon the probable defence of the accused. The
exercise is limited to examining whether the material placed
by the prosecution, if taken at face value, discloses sufficient
ground to presume that the accused has committed the alleged
offences. The degree of satisfaction required is only that of a
strong suspicion and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. A
meticulous analysis of contradictions, credibility of witnesses,
or likelihood of conviction would amount to a mini trial, which is
impermissible at this stage. (Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali,; Ram
Prakash Chadha v. State of U.P.8.)
6
Hereinafter referred to as 'DSP'
7
(2017) 14 SCC 304
8
(2024) 10 SCC 651
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
53
Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

ƒ
While dealing with the applicability of Section 149 of the IPC,
the Court observed that the appellant has been implicated as a
member of an unlawful assembly, and the offences alleged are
stated to have been committed in prosecution of the common
object of such assembly. The Court clarified that, at the stage
of framing of charges, it is not necessary that a specific overt
act be attributed to each individual accused. What is required
is prima facie material indicating membership of the unlawful
assembly and the likelihood that the accused shared the common
object or had knowledge that such offences were likely to be
committed. The Court noted that multiple witnesses, including
injured police personnel, have categorically stated that the
appellant was a participant in the JAYS rally and was present
at the place of occurrence when public officials were restrained
and assaulted. Whether the appellant merely happened to
be present, or whether he shared the common object of the
assembly, are matters that can only be conclusively determined
after evidence is led during trial. At this stage, the prosecution
material was held sufficient to attract Section 149 IPC. (State
of Maharashtra v. Kashirao9.)

ƒ
The Court further held that challenges raised by the appellant
concerning his exact presence at the spot, the credibility of
the medical evidence, the qualifications of the doctor who
conducted the radiological examination, and the precise role
attributed to him, all involve disputed questions of fact. Such
issues necessarily require appreciation of evidence and cannot
be conclusively adjudicated either at the stage of framing of
charges or while exercising appellate jurisdiction against an
order framing charge. These matters were held to fall squarely
within the domain of trial.

ƒ
Upon an overall consideration of the impugned order, the High
Court found that the Special Judge had applied the correct
legal principles, considered the material available on record,
and assigned cogent reasons while framing charges against
the appellant. The order was found to be free from perversity,
procedural impropriety, or patent illegality. Consequently, the
9
(2003) 10 SCC 434
54
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
High Court held that no case was made out for interference
in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 14(A)(1) of
the SCST Act, and affirmed the order framing charges. (Amit
Kapoor (supra); Vinay Tyagi, (supra)
6.
We have heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the
accused and Mr. Pashupati Nath Razdan, learned Advocate-onRecord for the State. The sole point of challenge raised before this
Court is the subsistence of charges under the SCST Act against
the accused.
7.
As such, let us look at the relevant provisions thereof-
"3. Punishments for offences atrocities.-3 [(1) Whoever,
not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe,-
xxx--------------------------xxx-----------------------------xxx
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe,-
xxx--------------------------xxx-----------------------------xxx
(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten
years or more against a person or property 1 [knowing
that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member],
shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;
(va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule,
against a person or property, knowing that such person is
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or
such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable
with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be
liable to fine;..."
8.
At this stage, it is important to take note of the objects and reasons
for the enactment of the SCST Act. Sujata Manohar J, in State of
M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia10, while dealing with the constitutionality
10
(1995) 3 SCC 221
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
55
Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
of Section 18 thereof which takes the applicability of the provisions of
anticipatory bail housed in the provisions of the Cr.P.C. for offences
under this Act, as follows:
"6... In this connection we may refer to the Statement
of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Bill, 1989, when it was introduced in Parliament. It sets
out the circumstances surrounding the enactment of the
said Act and points to the evil which the statute sought
to remedy. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons it
is stated:
"Despite various measures to improve the socio-economic
conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes, they remain vulnerable. They are denied number
of civil rights. They are subjected to various offences,
indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have, in
several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and
property. Serious crimes are committed against them for
various historical, social and economic reasons
2. ... When they assert their rights and resist practices of
untouch-ability against them or demand statutory minimum
wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the
vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them.
When the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try
to preserve their self-respect or honour of their women,
they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty.
Occupation and cultivation of even the Government allotted
land by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is
resented and more often these people become victims of
attacks by the vested interests. Of late, there has been an
increase in the disturbing trend of commission of certain
atrocities like making the Scheduled Caste persons eat
inedible substances like human excreta and attacks on and
mass killings of helpless Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes and rape of women belonging to the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.... A special legislation
to check and deter crimes against them committed by
non-Scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes has,
therefore, become necessary."
56
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
The above statement graphically describes the social
conditions which motivated the said legislation. It is pointed
out in the above Statement of Objects and Reasons that
when members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes assert their rights and demand statutory protection,
vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise
them...."
9.
While the Constitution guarantees equality, freedom from
discrimination, and the right to live with dignity, these ideals often
remained abstract for SC and ST communities because of centuries
of social exclusion, oppression, and violence. Recognizing this
gap, the Act provides targeted legal protection, ensuring that the
constitutional promises of equality and justice are realized in practice.
At its core, the Act embodies the principle of equality before the law,
as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. It goes beyond formal
equality, acknowledging that SC/ST communities face unique social
vulnerabilities. By defining specific offences such as physical assault,
sexual abuse, humiliation, and social ostracism, and prescribing
stricter punishments, the law ensures substantive equality, allowing
these individuals to live with safety, respect, and dignity in a society
that has historically denied them these rights. The Act also reinforces
the constitutional mandate under Article 17, which prescribed the
abolishment of untouchability. Modern forms of caste-based indignity,
like forcing individuals into menial or degrading labour, denying
them access to public spaces, or socially boycotting them, are
specifically criminalized. These provisions help translate the ideals
of the Constitution, of freedom from untouchability into actionable
legal protection, restoring both social and personal dignity to victims.
Furthermore, the Act embodies Article 15's prohibition against
discrimination, ensuring that SCST persons can access education,
employment, and civic life without fear of prejudice. By shielding
these communities from targeted harassment and violence, the law
turns the promise of non-discrimination into a lived reality. At the
same time, it safeguards the right to life and dignity under Article 21,
recognizing that life is not merely about survival, but about living with
respect, security, and freedom from humiliation. Relief, rehabilitation,
and special protective measures under the Act directly uphold this
principle. Finally, the SCST Act advances the broader goals of social
justice and positive discrimination, reflected in Articles 38 and 46. By
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
57
Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
creating a safe and supportive environment, the Act enables SCST
communities to participate fully in social, educational, and economic
opportunities, helping to break cycles of historical oppression. In
this sense, the Act is a transformative instrument, bridging the gap
between constitutional ideals and everyday realities, ensuring that
SC/ST citizens can live as equal, dignified, and empowered members
of society.
10. We must turn back to the application for discharge and examine
the averment regarding changes under the SCST Act. The relevant
portion of the application is extracted as under:-
"h) Charges levied under SC/ST Act - Applicant was
charged under Section 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the
SC/ST Act. The essential ingredient to constitute this
offence areThere must be victim of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe.
iii Use of casteist or derogatory word in Public place
against the victim
iii. Knowledge of accused regarding the caste of the victim.
iv. Physical Presence of accused at the time of Incident.
That, it is essential to mention here that the FIR and Final
Report both are silent pertaining to use of derogatory word
or casteist term. Further, there is no specific averment
pertaining to use of casteist word against the original
complainant. None of the above mentioned ingredient is
available in the present matter, hence the applicant may
kindly be discharged from this charge."
In its judgment on the application, the learned Trial Court dealt with
the proposed charge under the SCST Act alongside a number of
provisions of IPC. For a charge under the above quoted provisions of
the SCST Act to be established, several elements must be present.
The accused must first commit an offence under the IPC, such as
assault, robbery, or any other crime punishable with ten or more
years of imprisonment. The act must be directed against a member
of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, or against property that
belongs to them, reflecting the special protection the law affords
58
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
to historically marginalized communities. In addition, the accused
must have knowledge that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe or that the property belongs to such a person.
This requirement of awareness is essential to the application of the
law. Finally, the punishment prescribed under this sub-section is life
imprisonment along with a fine, underscoring the gravity of offences
committed against vulnerable communities.
Section 3(va) deals with specific atrocities listed in the Schedule of
the Act, including forced labour, harassment, social exclusion, or
damage to property that target SC or ST persons. To attract liability
under this provision, the accused must commit one of the scheduled
offences against a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
or their property. The offender must know the caste identity of the
victim or that the property belongs to them, ensuring that the law
applies to deliberate acts of caste-based harm. The punishment for
these offences is as specified under the Indian Penal Code along
with an additional fine, providing flexibility to address a range of
atrocities that may not carry ten years or more of imprisonment but
still require special protection for the victim.
The question that then arises, is - who were present before the
learned Trial Court that, in its appreciation of the material on record,
met the standard required for framing of charge?
11. Section 227 and 228 of the CrPC are as below:
"227. Discharge.-If, upon consideration of the record
of the case and the documents submitted therewith,
and after hearing the submissions of the accused and
the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that
there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his
reasons for so doing.
228. Framing of charge.-(1) If, after such consideration
and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there
is ground for presuming that the accused has committed
an offence which-
(a) ...
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame
in writing a charge against the accused.
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
59
Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b)
of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained
to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he
pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried."
Even though the instant case is governed by the prior regime of
substantive and procedural criminal laws, we may observe that in
the new legislation, now occupying the field, the position remains
the same. On a close reading of the statutory text of the Cr.P.C. and
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the position is one of
continuity rather than change in relation to the Court's power at the
stages of discharge and framing of charge. In both enactments, the
governing standards are framed in materially the same language.
At the stage of discharge, the Court is required to consider whether
there is any sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused in
sessions cases, or whether the charge is groundless in Magistrate
warrant cases. At the subsequent stage, charges are to be framed
only if the Court forms an opinion that there is a ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an offence. These formulations,
which have long anchored the exercise of judicial discretion under
the Cr.P.C., are carried forward in substance in the corresponding
provisions of the BNSS, without any textual indication that the level
of scrutiny is intended to be either heightened or diluted.
What the BNSS does is to change the procedural setting within which
this discretion is exercised. The new statute introduces express
timelines for the filing of discharge applications and for the framing
of charges, and it expressly recognises the possibility of the accused
being heard or examined through electronic means. These changes
are regulatory in nature. They are aimed at structuring the process
and reducing delay, not at transforming the judicial task itself. The
Court's obligation to apply its mind to the record, to hear both sides,
and to record reasons where discharge is ordered remains exactly as
before, as does the caution against weighing evidence or conducting
a mini trial at these preliminary stages.
Accordingly, the established jurisprudence developed under the
Cr.P.C. on the scope and limits of consideration at the stages of
discharge and framing of charge continues to hold the field under
the BNSS. The statutory language supports the conclusion that the
Legislature has retained the same substantive balance between the
60
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
rights of the accused and the interest of prosecution, while seeking
to impose greater procedural discipline and expedition. In substance,
the power remains the same; only the manner of its exercise has
been more tightly structured.
12. Sajjan Kumar v. CBI11, which has been relied upon a bench of three
judges in Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey12,
formulated the following principles regarding the scope of the above
quoted sections:
21. ...
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the
charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power
to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of
finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out. The test to determine prima
facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing
a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence
and the documents produced before the court, any basic
infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and
weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could
form an opinion that the accused might have committed
offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the
conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value
of the material on record cannot be gone into but before
11
(2010) 9 SCC 368
12
(2022) 12 SCC 657
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
61
Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on
the material placed on record and must be satisfied that
the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on record
with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom
taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the
ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited
purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even
at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states
as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or
the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the
trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused
and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will
end in conviction or acquittal.
13. Having discussed the sections proposed to be charged against the
appellant, let us now examine the discussion of the Trial Court. In
part D of its order, the learned Trial Court deals with the charges
under Sections 341, 146, 147, 353, 333, 326, 332, 336, IPC and
charges under the SCST Act. Having considered the above said
sections from Paras 26 to 37, para 38 records thus:
"38.Consequently, on the basis of the above discussion,
in the light of the evidence collected by the investigation
officer on record and the documents presented by the
prosecution, the accused were charged under Section 147,
341, 427, 353, 332, 333, 326, 352, 323 of IPC read with
Section 149 and Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of
the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, there being sufficient grounds
for framing charges under these Sections charges were
framed separately against the accused under the said
Sections. It is noteworthy that apart from accused Dr Anand
Rai, other accused have produced their caste certificate
declaring themselves to be members of Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribes. In such a situation, provisions of the
Act, 1989 are attracted only in respect of Dr Anand Rai..."
62
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Here itself it be noted that in Part C of the judgment, the learned
Trial Court recorded as follows in respect of Section 3(1)(r) of the
SCST Act:-
"23. It is a well settled principle that Section 149 of IPC is
not applicable in respect of Section 294 of IPC and 506
of IPC invoked in relation to the Act of giving threat to kill.
Sections 294 and 506 of IPC (Part 2) read with Section 3(1)
(F) and 3(1)(s) of the Act, 1989 are applicable in respect
of the person who has used abusive language or who has
threatened to kill or who has used abusive caste-specific
words with the intent of insult.
24. In the evidence collected by the Investigation Officer
and in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.,
none of the witnesses have specifically stated as to which
of the accused persons used casteist slurs to insult, abuse
and threaten to kill.
25. Consequently, on the basis of the above discussion,
sections 294 and 506 (part-2) of IPC read with sections
3(1) (r) and 3(1) (s) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1989 are not attracted against the accused and hence,
all the accused are acquitted under the said sections."
14. In view of the requirements of the sections proposed to be charged,
as discussed in para 9 of this Judgment, we are at a loss to
understand that when the Trial Court itself acknowledges that none
of the statements under Section 161 CrPC, state the specific slurs
uttered by the accused with the intent to insult threaten or kill, then
how is it found, on the same bundle of evidence, and with the same
level of scrutiny thereof, that the alleged acts of the accused were
informed by caste awareness. There does not appear to be any
other material on record either, to establish knowledge on part of
the accused. Once the knowledge on part of the alleged offender is
in question, it is but certain that the charge cannot stand.
15. Curiously, the impugned judgment/order of the High Court, although
running into eighteen pages, does not deal at all with the charge
under SCST Act. All that is said, is that the Trial Court has 'assigned
elaborate reasons'. As demonstrated above, those reasons are lacking
and insufficient. Only for the reason that on a facial analysis of the
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
63
Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
evidence placed on record, some of the charges of the IPC, appear
to be met, the SCST Sections have also been charged against the
accused. However, we are of the considered view that the apparent
evidence on record is in no way sufficient for a facial analysis of the
case at hand, or for a 'prima facie' view to be taken, or enough to
distinguish suspicion from grave suspicion, in so far as the knowledge
is concerned that would inform the accused's alleged misdeeds. That
apart, it may also be observed that there is no averment whatsoever
that the complainant was a member of the SCST Community.