Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs State of Maharashtra case is related with:

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 3:
The case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs State of Maharashtra (2018) is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India that delivered a set of mandatory directions to prevent the misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (commonly known as the SC/ST Act). The core issue addressed by the Supreme Court was the rising number of instances where false complaints were allegedly being filed under the Act to settle civil disputes or personal vendettas, leading to the immediate arrest of the accused without proper investigation. Recognizing the importance of the Act for protecting vulnerable communities, but also the need to protect the liberty of innocent citizens, the Court introduced procedural safeguards. These safeguards included the requirement of a preliminary inquiry by the police before registering an FIR, and mandating that a public servant could only be arrested after obtaining written permission from the appointing authority. These directions were intended to balance the objective of the Act—which is to prevent atrocities against SC/ST communities—with the principle of due process and protection against arbitrary arrest. However, due to significant public and political backlash arguing that these directions diluted the strict provisions of the Act, the Parliament later passed the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018, effectively nullifying the procedural changes introduced by the Supreme Court's verdict. Nonetheless, the case remains historically significant for its attempt to address the alleged misuse of the law.

The incorrect option is 1:
Honour killing is a severe social crime, but the Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case does not specifically deal with this issue. Cases related to honour killing and the protection of couples who marry inter-caste or inter-religion are typically handled through other legal provisions, often involving the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life) and the role of Khap Panchayats or other local bodies. Landmark judgments concerning honour killings, such as Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India (2018), have focused on preventing these crimes and ensuring police protection for vulnerable individuals. Therefore, while both topics address social issues, the legal subject matter of the *Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan* case is distinct and focused purely on the procedural aspects of the SC/ST Act.

The incorrect option is 2:
The issue of video recording or live streaming of court proceedings in the public interest is related to transparency in the judicial system, but it is not the subject matter of the *Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan* case. The Supreme Court addressed the live streaming of judicial proceedings in a separate, path-breaking case, Swapnil Tripathi vs. Supreme Court of India (2018). In that verdict, the Court gave its assent to the live streaming of proceedings, subject to rules and safeguards, in order to promote access to justice and transparency. Linking the *Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan* case, which concerns criminal procedure under a specific social legislation, to the concept of judicial transparency through live streaming is factually inaccurate.

The incorrect option is 4:
The reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities is a highly contentious issue related to service law and constitutional amendments, but it is not the subject of the *Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan* case. Major legal battles regarding this topic have been heard in cases like M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India (2006) and Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018). These cases established the constitutional requirements and conditions, such as the demonstration of 'backwardness' and 'inadequacy of representation,' that the government must fulfill before granting reservation in promotion. The Mahajan case focused solely on the process of arrest and investigation under the SC/ST Act, making the issue of reservation in promotion unrelated to its core subject.