DR. ANAND RAIversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

                   [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-on-
       Record 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 are-
           There 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. Still
     further, when the complaint, and the subsequent statements under
     Section 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.
16. Further, it may be observed that the High Court in deciding the
    appeal against the partial order of discharge, has not carried out its
    duty as the first court of appeal. The Section of the Act pertaining
    to appeals is:
           “[14-A. Appeals.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained
           in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an
           appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order,
           not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an
           Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts
           and on law.
           (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3)
           of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2
           of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an
           order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court
           granting or refusing bail.
           (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
           for the time being in force, every appeal under this section
           shall be preferred within a period of ninety days from the
           date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from:
           Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after
           the expiry of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied
           that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring
           the appeal within the period of ninety days:
64                                                           [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


              Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained after
              the expiry of the period of one hundred and eighty days.
              (4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as
              far as possible, be disposed of within a period of three
              months from the date of admission of the appeal.]
                                                   (emphasis supplied)

17. Even though Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of U.P.13, holds that orders
    framing charge or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor
    final, an appeal thereagainst would fall under Section 14-A above,
    since the words used are “any judgment, sentence or order, not being
    an interlocutory order”. An appeal under Section 14-A of the SCST
    Act is a statutory first appeal. It is well settled that a first appellate
    Court in criminal matters is a Court of both fact and law and is
    obliged to independently evaluate the material on record before either
    affirming or reversing the findings of the Courts below. This Court
    has consistently emphasised that such an appeal is a valuable right
    and that its disposal must reflect due application of mind. In Bani
    Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh14, the Court held that the appellate
    Court cannot dispose of a criminal appeal in a cursory manner and
    must itself examine the evidence and the reasoning of the Trial
    Court. Similarly, in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka15, this Court
    reiterated that the appellate Court has full power to reappreciate,
    reconsider, and review the evidence upon which the order of the
    lower court is founded and to arrive at its own conclusions.
18. This principle applies with equal force to appeals under Section 14-A
    of the SC/ST Act. The provision does not curtail or dilute the ordinary
    appellate powers of the High Court. Consequently, the High Court
    does not function as a revisional or supervisory Court while exercising
    jurisdiction under Section 14-A but assumes the role of a first appellate
    court. A mechanical affirmation of the order of the Special Court,
    without independent scrutiny, would therefore be inconsistent with
    settled appellate jurisprudence and would amount to a failure to



13    (2022) 15 SCC 720
14    (1996) 4 SCC 720
15    (2007) 4 SCC 415
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                          65

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


      exercise jurisdiction. Even where the appellate Court ultimately agrees
      with the reasoning of the Courts below, the judgment must disclose
      that the material was independently examined. However, the width
      of the appellate power under Section 14-A must be understood in
      the context of the nature of the order under challenge. The Supreme
      Court has repeatedly drawn a distinction between appellate scrutiny
      of final judgments and judicial intervention at threshold stages of
      criminal proceedings. Where an appeal arises from a conviction or
      acquittal, the appellate Court is entitled to undertake a comprehensive
      reappreciation of evidence and to reassess witness credibility. This
      flows from the settled principle that the first appellate Court is the
      final Court of fact, subject of course to self-imposed restraint in
      appeals against acquittal.
19. A different discipline governs cases arising at the stage of discharge,
    framing of charge, or prima facie satisfaction. The Court has
    consistently held that at this stage the Court is not concerned
    with proof of guilt or the sufficiency of evidence for conviction. In
    State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh16 and later in Union of India v.
    Prafulla Kumar Samal17, the Court clarified that the test is whether
    the material on record, taken at face value, discloses the essential
    ingredients of the alleged offence and gives rise to a strong or grave
    suspicion against the accused. The Court is expressly cautioned
    against conducting a roving inquiry or weighing the evidence as if
    at trial. When these generally applicable principles are applied to an
    appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act arising from a threshold
    order, the High Court’s role, though appellate in nature, stands
    circumscribed by the limits governing discharge. The 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. This
    form of scrutiny does not amount to appreciation of the material but
    is an exercise in legal evaluation of the allegations as they stand.



16   (1977) 4 SCC 39
17   (1979) 3 SCC 4
66                                                            [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


      At the same time, even while exercising first appellate jurisdiction, the
      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 threshold scrutiny
      and would result in a premature determination of guilt or innocence.
      The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that defences available
      to the accused are matters for trial and cannot ordinarily form the
      basis for discharge unless the material relied upon is of sterling and
      unimpeachable character.
      Thus, the appellate power under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act must
      be exercised in harmony with the broader framework of criminal
      procedure. While the High Court is 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.
20. In that view of the matter, the charges upon the accused in so far
    as the SCST Act stand quashed. The matter is remitted back to the
    Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law regarding the other
    changes framed against the accused. It stands clarified that no part
    of the consideration made herein shall be construed as a comment
    on any of the charges other than the provisions of the SCST Act.
    The Criminal appeal is allowed to the above extent.
21. Before parting with the matter, it is observed that at the stage of framing
    of charge or considering discharge, the Court is not dealing with an
    abstract legal exercise. It is dealing with real people, real anxieties,
    and the real weight of criminal prosecution. Judicial responsibility at
    this stage calls for care, balance, and an honest engagement with
    the facts on record. The 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 have the
    clarity and courage to say so and to keep such a case aside.
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                          67

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


     Discharge, in that sense, is not a technical indulgence but an essential
     safeguard. The 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 most people ever step into. For a litigant or an accused, the
     Trial Court is not just one level in a hierarchy. It represents the face
     of the judiciary itself. The sensitivity, fairness, and legal discipline
     shown at this stage shape how ordinary citizens understand justice.
     The impression a Trial Court creates, through its approach to facts
     and law, often becomes the impression people carry of the entire
     judicial system. That is why, at every stage and especially at the
     threshold, Trial Courts must remain alive to the human consequences
     of their decisions and to the trust that society places in them.
     Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain