Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has sought the assistance of the Advocate General of Maharashtra and Additional Solicitor General of India to decide which proceedings are to be recorded under Section 15A of the Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

The division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice SV Kotwal was hearing a matter referred by Justice Sadhna Jadhav before the larger bench for adjudication.

“Having regard to the importance of the issues which have been referred for decision to this Bench, we request the learned Additional Solicitor General of India to address the Court on the next date. We also request the learned Advocate General to extend his assistance in the matter,” the order reads.

The division bench also appointed Advocate Mayur Khandeparkar as Amicus Curiae to assist the court.

Justice Sadhna Jadhav in its order had stated that the issue regarding the implementation of sub-clause 10 of Section 15A of said Act deserves to be referred to a larger bench to dwell upon the issues.

Justice Sadhna Jhadav in its order had framed the following questions to be considered by a larger bench.

• Whether proceeding under 15A (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 would amount to a judicial proceeding as contemplated under section 2 (i) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
• Whether it would be necessary to video record any proceeding relating to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, especially when the proceedings are held in open court, as contemplated under section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and what would be the objective to be achieved?
• Whether hearing of a bail application under section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is a judicial proceeding as contemplated under section 15A of the said Act?
• Whether section 15A (10) of the said Act could be implemented in the absence of rules framed under the Act or formulation of a scheme for implementation?

The high court was considering the bail application of three doctors namely Hema Ahuja, Bhakti Mehare, and Ankita Khandelwal who were charged with abetting the suicide of their junior colleague, Dr. Payal Tadvi, in 2019.

Dr Tadvi, a second-year postgraduate medical student at Mumbai's BYL Nair hospital, took her own life on May 22, 2019, in her hostel room. A purported suicide note attributed her death to harassment by the three senior doctors.

The family of Dr Tadvi claimed that the accused had subjected her to harassment, ragging, and casteist slurs.

The trio was initially arrested but later released on bail.

Case title: Hema Suresh Ahuja & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra & Anr