The question however is, whether the State Government, could in its discretion, in furtherance of the power vested with it under Section 9 of the 'SCST Act', relax the provision made by Rule 7 of the 'SCST Rules'.
18. It is imperative to emphasise, that as against the national character of the rule making power vested with the Central Government under Section 23 of the 'SCST Act', the delegated power contemplated under Section 9 of the 'SCST Act', is State specific. The power exercised by a State, keeps in mind the circumstances prevailing in the concerned State. The legitimacy and validity of the exercise of the instant delegated power (vested in a State Government), has therefore to be determined, with reference to the peculiar facts and circumstances prevailing in an individual State.
In exercise of the power vested under Section 9 of the 'SCST Act', each individual State Government, was vested with the authority, to extend to officers other than the officers contemplated under the provisions of the 'SCST Act', powers of arrest, investigation and prosecution. A reasonable and legitimate understanding of the scope of the power of arrest, investigation and prosecution, will necessarily require a conjoint reading of the provisions of the 'SCST Act' and the 'SCST Rules'. After the promulgation of the 'SCST Rules', undoubtedly, the Central Government provided for investigation, at the hands of an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. But, the rightful approach to the issue in hand would emerge from the query, whether a provision made under a rule, can negate a right extended through the parent legislation? The answer obviously has to be in the negative.
This simple reasoning, unfolds the answer of the issue being debated. In our considered view, Section 9(1)(b) confers on the State Government, the power to further delegate the power of arrest, investigation and prosecution. This power vested with the State Government, through a non obstante clause, cannot be neutralized by any rule framed under Section 23 of the 'SCST Act'. The non obstante clause, would allow a State Government to exercise the power conferred on it - irrespective of the provisions of the 'SCST Act', and also irrespective of the provisions of the 'SCST Rules', to delegate to
"... any officer of the State Government ...", the power of arrest, investigation and prosecution. We are of the view, that the non obstante clause, extended to the State Government, power to overlook and provide differently, from the position contemplated under the 'SCST Act', as well as the 'SCST Rules'.
The issue whether the State Government was competent to relax the above rule, requiring that investigation be not carried out, by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and thereby, extend the power of investigation to officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, has therefore to be answered in the affirmative.
19. Having concluded as above, we are satisfied to uphold, not only Rule 7 of the 'SCST Rules', but also the notification dated 03.06.2002, issued by the State Government, in exercise of the power vested in it under Section 9(1)(b) of the 'SCST Act'. Accordingly, we find no merit in the challenge raised on behalf of the appellant-accused, to the notification dated 03.06.2002.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
State of Bihar and Others etc. Vs. Anil Kumar and Others etc.
[Civil Appeal Nos. 4397-4400 of 2017 arising from SLP (C) Nos. 27524-27 of 2011]
[Civil Appeal No. 4401 of 2017 arising from SLP (C) No.7317 of 2017]
Print Page
