In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, which sought, among other things, a directive restraining High Courts from applying the guidelines established by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, specifically in instances registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The guidelines in question were originally issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar's case to regulate arrests in situations related to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, aiming to prevent the potential misuse of this legal provision. However, the recent petition sought a blanket prohibitory order, asserting that these guidelines should not be applied in cases falling under the SC/ST Atrocities Act.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Dutta made it clear that the Court would not issue a blanket order restraining the High Courts from applying the principles outlined in Arnesh Kumar's case. The judgment emphasized the impracticality and undesirability of such a broad directive.

The Court categorically stated that the Writ Petition was "wholly misconceived and misdirected" in its plea to declare all judgments, orders, or directions following Arnesh Kumar's case as violative of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 17, and 21 of the Constitution. The bench highlighted that if the principles articulated in Arnesh Kumar's case were erroneously applied, the aggrieved party could seek redress through appropriate legal channels.

Addressing concerns about potential judicial errors, the Court clarified that challenging an erroneous order by a High Court did not fall within the purview of Article 32 of the Constitution. Instead, it suggested that such orders could be subject to judicial review through appropriate proceedings initiated by the affected parties.

The judgment further emphasized that the relief sought by the petitioner would essentially amount to a modification or partial review of the Arnesh Kumar judgment, a course of action deemed impermissible under Article 32.

Importantly, the Court underscored that its decision should not be construed as affecting the rights or grievances of complainants or victims. Individuals with specific grievances were encouraged to seek redressal through suitable remedies available to them.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's recent order stands as a significant pronouncement affirming the need for nuanced legal remedies and procedures in cases involving the application of legal guidelines, with a particular emphasis on the principles set forth in the Arnesh Kumar case.

Case: ANIL KUMAR ALIAS ANIL BABA vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

WRIT PETITION (CRL.)NO.577 OF 2023.

Click to read/download order.