In a significant judgment delivered on January 24, 2025, a Larger Bench of the Allahabad High Court provided much-needed clarity on the appeal process under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court addressed a critical question: Should appeals against convictions under the IPC—when the accused is acquitted under the SC/ST Act—be filed under the CrPC or Section 14A of the SC/ST Act?

The court overruled the earlier Teja v. State of U.P. decision, emphasizing the non-obstante clause in Section 14A and the overriding effect of the SC/ST Act. This article breaks down the judgment and its implications.

Read Also - IPC 361 and 363 Inapplicable When Victim Exceeds 18 Years; Lapses in Witness Identification Undermine Prosecution Case: SC Rules

Background: What Sparked the Legal Debate?

The confusion arose from conflicting interpretations of Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, which governs appeals against judgments by Special Courts. In Teja v. State of U.P. (2019), a Division Bench ruled that if an accused is acquitted under the SC/ST Act but convicted under the IPC, the appeal should be filed under the CrPC.

However, a Single Judge later questioned this view, arguing that Section 14A’s non-obstante clause (“notwithstanding anything in the CrPC”) mandates all appeals from Special Courts to be filed under the SC/ST Act, regardless of acquittal under the Act.

Key Questions Addressed by the Court

The Larger Bench examined two critical issues:

1. Remedy for Acquittal Under SC/ST Act but Conviction Under IPC: Should appeals be filed under the CrPC or Section 14A?
2. Validity of the Teja Judgment: Was the Division Bench’s interpretation correct?

The Court’s Analysis: Why Section 14A Prevails

• Plain Language of Section 14A
  The court stressed that Section 14A(1) explicitly states:

“Notwithstanding anything in the CrPC, an appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence, or order of a Special Court to the High Court.”

Read Also - Supreme Court Orders Inquiry Into Custodial Torture While Dismissing State's Appeal

This language leaves no ambiguity: All appeals from Special Courts must follow Section 14A, even if the conviction is only under the IPC.

• Overriding Effect of the SC/ST Act
  Section 20 of the SC/ST Act grants it primacy over other laws, including the CrPC. The court noted:

“The Act’s provisions prevail over any inconsistent laws. Filing appeals under the CrPC undermines the Act’s intent to protect marginalized communities.”

• Misinterpretation in the Teja Case
  The Teja judgment failed to consider:
  • The non-obstante clause in Section 14A.
  • The harmonious construction of Sections 4 and 5 of the CrPC, which allow special laws like the SC/ST Act to override general procedures.

The Larger Bench concluded:

“The Teja decision ignored the legislative intent behind Section 14A and created an artificial distinction between SC/ST Act and IPC convictions.”

Read Also - Supreme Court Dismisses 2009 PIL Against Mayawati's Statues, Upholds ECI Guidelines on Public Funds

Implications of the Judgment

1. Uniform Appeal Process: All appeals from Special Courts—whether for acquittal, conviction, or sentencing—must now be filed under Section 14A.
2. Victim-Centric Approach: The ruling reinforces the Act’s focus on protecting victims’ rights, including their participation in bail and sentencing hearings.
3. Faster Resolutions: By centralizing appeals under Section 14A, the court aims to expedite cases, aligning with the Act’s goal of speedy justice.

This judgment resolves procedural ambiguities and strengthens the SC/ST Act’s framework. Legal practitioners must now ensure appeals from Special Courts comply with Section 14A, even for IPC convictions. As the court remarked:

“The legislature’s intent is clear: Special laws demand special procedures. Ignoring this undermines justice for marginalized communities.”

For victims and accused alike, this ruling clarifies the roadmap for challenging judgments, ensuring consistency and adherence to the Act’s protective ethos.

This decision underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding legislative intent while balancing individual rights. Legal professionals should revisit past cases filed under the CrPC and consider re-filing them under Section 14A where applicable.

“Laws evolve through interpretation. This judgment is a milestone in aligning legal procedures with societal justice.” – Legal Expert Analysis