Madras High Court narrows Special Court’s suo motu powers under the SC/ST Act: Administrative enquiry is sine qua non for Section 4; Externment under Section 10 demands a complaint/police report, area verification, and concrete likelihood of atrocity

Decision: Lokeshwaran Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu (with companion petition: State v. Parvathi)

Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Sathish Kumar

Date: 09 September 2025

Statutes involved: Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS); Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS); Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002; Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992

Introduction

This common order of the Madras High Court addresses two Criminal Original Petitions arising out of a local altercation that escalated into significant procedural and ethical controversy. The petitions targeted two suo motu orders passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram (functioning as Special Court under the SC/ST Act), namely:

a 04.09.2025 order purporting to “extern” accused persons under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act in Crime No. 283 of 2025; and
a 08.09.2025 order taking cognizance under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and remanding the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Kancheepuram, to judicial custody for allegedly failing to act against the accused in the same crime.

The petitions—one by Mr. Lokeshwaran Ravi (the then Personal Security Officer (PSO) of the said Principal District Judge) and the other by the State (Superintendent of Police, DSP, and Inspector of Police, Walajabad)—alleged that the impugned orders were fueled by personal motives and constituted misuse of judicial office to “wreck vengeance” against the PSO. The allegations included WhatsApp communications between the Judge and the Superintendent of Police seeking a change of PSO, threats to register cases, and coercion of police to arrest and implement orders quickly.

Against this factual canvas, the High Court was called upon to determine the scope and legality of (a) a Special Court’s ability to pass externment orders under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act suo motu and (b) taking cognizance against public servants under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act without prior administrative enquiry recommendation. The Court also considered the propriety of judicial directions impinging upon the discretion of the Investigating Officer (IO) to arrest.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court allowed both Criminal Original Petitions and set aside the two impugned suo motu orders (dated 04.09.2025 and 08.09.2025) of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram.
It ordered the immediate release of the remanded DSP, Kancheepuram.
On Section 10 (externment), the Court held that the Special Court could not, in the facts, pass an externment order merely upon receipt of an FIR, without a complaint or a police report forming the basis, without verifying that the action related to a scheduled area/identified area under Section 21(2)(vii), and without establishing a concrete likelihood of the accused committing offences under Chapter II of the Act. The order was held “totally unwarranted.”
On Section 4 (public servant’s neglect of duty), the Court applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of GNCT of Delhi v. Praveen Kumar @ Prashanth (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1591), holding that recommendation of an administrative enquiry is a sine qua non to set the criminal process in motion under Section 4(2). In its absence, cognizance and remand were impermissible.
The Court reiterated that arrest is the IO’s discretion and a court “cannot direct that a particular person should be arrested.”
In view of the serious allegations of misuse of power and improper communications, the Court directed the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Madras, to conduct an independent enquiry and to submit a report by 23.09.2025.

Factual Background and Timeline

25.07.2025: Two cross-complaints (CSRs 1121 and 1122 of 2025) were lodged at Walajabad Police Station regarding an altercation at a bakery between the group of the PSO (Lokeshwaran Ravi) and Ms. Parvathi’s family.
28.07.2025: Both CSRs were closed after statements and amicable settlement.
20.08.2025: Two FIRs registered based on the previously closed CSRs:
- Crime No. 282 of 2025: against Murugan (Parvathi’s husband) under BNS Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act; and
- Crime No. 283 of 2025: against the PSO and his family, including offences under BNS Sections 296(b), 115(2), Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
04.09.2025: The Principal District and Sessions Judge passed a suo motu externment order under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act against “Siva @ Sivakumar” and others (including the PSO and family) in Crime No. 283 of 2025, directing them to remove themselves outside Kancheepuram District until completion of investigation/final report.
08.09.2025: After summoning the DSP, the Special Court took cognizance under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and remanded the DSP to judicial custody for allegedly failing to act against the accused in Crime No. 283 of 2025.
09.09.2025: The High Court, on leave, heard and decided both petitions, set aside the orders, and directed a vigilance enquiry.

Issues

Whether a Special Court can pass an externment order under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act suo motu, without a complaint or police report, without verifying that the area is a scheduled/identified area, and absent concrete reasons to believe the accused will commit Chapter II offences.
Whether cognizance against a public servant under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act can be taken and the public servant remanded without a prior administrative enquiry recommending such action.
Whether a court can direct arrest or punish police officials for not arresting when arrest decisions lie within the IO’s discretion.
What remedial steps are warranted when serious allegations arise about misuse of judicial office and extraneous motives influencing criminal process.

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

State of GNCT of Delhi and others v. Praveen Kumar alias Prashanth, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1591

The Supreme Court held that, for offences under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act (punishing public servants for neglect of duty), a recommendation emerging from an administrative enquiry is a sine qua non to initiate penal proceedings or to take cognizance.
The Madras High Court directly relied on this articulation to invalidate the Special Court’s suo motu cognizance and remand of the DSP. Without an administrative recommendation establishing willful neglect of duties under Section 4(2) read with the 1995 Rules, criminal proceedings cannot be set in motion merely because a court is dissatisfied with the pace or direction of investigation.

Well-settled principles on arrest discretion

The High Court reiterated the settled position that “arrest is purely the discretion of the Investigating Officer” and that courts “cannot direct that a particular person should be arrested.” This principle safeguards the separation between investigative discretion and judicial oversight, ensuring arrests are justified by statutory criteria rather than judicial compulsion.

Legal Reasoning

1) Section 10 Externment: Preconditions are substantive, not perfunctory

Section 10 of the SC/ST Act empowers the Special Court to order removal (externment) of a person if satisfied that, in a scheduled area or an “identified area” under Section 21(2)(vii), the person is likely to commit an offence under Chapter II (the atrocity offences). The Court underscored multiple statutory guardrails:

Foundational material: An externment order must rest on a complaint or a police report. Mere receipt of an FIR at court is insufficient, absent any further police report or tangible evidence demonstrating the likelihood standard.
Geographic precondition: The Special Court must verify that the area is either a “scheduled area” under Article 244 of the Constitution or an area identified as atrocity-prone under Section 21(2)(vii). No such verification occurred here.
Likelihood of atrocity: There must be concrete reasons to believe the accused are likely to commit Chapter II offences. The underlying facts—an altercation during purchase of bakery items, cross-complaints that were closed amicably—did not objectively suggest an impending atrocity. The Court noted that in everyday altercations, parties may not even know each other’s caste, which undercut the hypothesis of imminent atrocity.
Temporal and proportional control: The swift sequence—closure of CSRs, later registration of FIRs on the same facts, and then immediate externment—heightened the Court’s concerns that Section 10 was used precipitously and without statutory satisfaction.

Holding the order “totally unwarranted,” the Court emphasized that externment is an exceptional, preventive mechanism targeted at protecting vulnerable communities from specific, foreseeable atrocities in statutorily demarcated areas—not a tool for general law-and-order disputes or private vendettas.

2) Section 4(2) against public servants: Administrative enquiry recommendation is mandatory

Applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Praveen Kumar, the High Court reaffirmed that to initiate penal proceedings (including taking cognizance) against a public servant for neglect of duties under Section 4(2), a recommendation emanating from an administrative enquiry is indispensable. The rationale is twofold:

Filtering vexation: Many complaints under the SC/ST Act involve emotive contexts; an administrative enquiry serves as an institutional filter to ensure only instances of willful neglect of statutory duties reach the criminal docket.
Statutory design: Section 4(2) read with the 1995 Rules specifies duties (e.g., prompt registration, victim protection, timely reporting). A recommendation ensures that alleged non-compliance is investigated and established administratively before criminal culpability is alleged.

Here, there was no such recommendation. The Special Court’s frustration with the pace or direction of the investigation could not substitute for the statutory prerequisite. Consequently, cognizance and remand of the DSP were vitiated.

3) Arrest lies within the IO’s domain

The High Court expressly held that a court cannot direct a particular person to be arrested. Arrest decisions are entrusted to the Investigating Officer, bounded by statutory criteria, necessity, and proportionality. The impugned remand—premised on alleged non-arrest—exceeded judicial authority.

4) Propriety and independence: When allegations implicate a judicial office

Given detailed affidavits alleging that the Special Court’s orders stemmed from personal animus toward the PSO, the High Court carefully refrained from definitive fact-finding in the criminal petitions. However, it found the manner of proceedings “prima facie” consistent with the allegations (e.g., WhatsApp exchanges about the PSO, threats of action under Section 4, immediate resort to externment and custody). The Court therefore directed an independent enquiry by the Registrar (Vigilance) into the alleged motive, bias, misuse of power, and communications between the Judge and police officials from 25.07.2025 through the impugned orders.

Impact and Significance

A. Doctrinal clarifications under the SC/ST Act

Externment (Section 10): Special Courts must not bypass statutory prerequisites. They must verify the geographical predicate (scheduled/identified area), ensure foundational material exists (complaint/police report), and record reasons showing a concrete likelihood of imminent atrocity. Externment cannot be used for ordinary law-and-order disputes or as a retaliatory measure.
Neglect of duty (Section 4(2)): Public servants cannot be criminally prosecuted or remanded for perceived inaction without an administrative enquiry recommending such action. This reinforces a due-process buffer preventing the criminalization of professional judgment or tempo of investigation absent proof of willful neglect.
Investigative autonomy: Arrest remains an operational decision for the IO. Courts oversee legality and rights but cannot micromanage arrests or penalize police for not arresting where statutory grounds are not made out.

B. Institutional norms and ethics

Judicial communications: The order sends a strong signal against informal or coercive judicial communications with the police that could influence case trajectories. It underscores the importance of maintaining visible impartiality and the appearance of fairness.
Vigilance oversight: By ordering an independent enquiry, the Court affirms that allegations of misuse of judicial office must be addressed institutionally, promptly, and transparently.

C. Practical consequences for stakeholders

Special Courts: Must develop practice protocols for Section 10 applications—insisting on police reports, confirming area status, and recording reasoned satisfaction on “likelihood.”
Police: Should meticulously document investigative steps and status reports to avoid perceptions of inaction, while preserving lawful discretion on arrest. Administrative enquiries must be initiated, where warranted, to assess alleged neglect under the Act.
Victims and accused: Victims retain robust protections under the Act, but this ruling guards against procedural shortcuts that could undermine legitimacy. Accused persons gain clarity on challenging externment orders lacking statutory predicates or Section 4 prosecutions sans administrative enquiry.
Bar and Bench: The case will likely serve as a leading reference in Tamil Nadu on Section 10 and Section 4(2), recalibrating practices around preventive orders and prosecution of public servants under the SC/ST Act.

Complex Concepts Simplified

CSR vs. FIR: A CSR (Community Service Register) entry records a complaint that may not immediately result in an FIR. An FIR (First Information Report) formally sets the criminal investigation in motion for a cognizable offence. In this case, cross-complaints were initially closed at the CSR stage; later, FIRs were registered on the same facts, raising concerns about timing and impetus.
Suo motu: Latin for “on its own motion.” A court can act suo motu only within the confines of law. The judgment clarifies that Section 10 and Section 4(2) do not authorize the kind of suo motu actions taken here without meeting statutory preconditions.
Externment (Section 10): A preventive order removing a person from a specified area to avert anticipated atrocity offences—available only in scheduled areas or government-identified atrocity-prone areas, and only upon foundational material demonstrating a real, concrete likelihood of such offences.
“Identified area” under Section 21(2)(vii): The State may identify atrocity-prone areas needing special protection. Externment under Section 10 must relate to such areas or constitutional scheduled areas (Article 244). Courts must verify this predicate.
Section 4(2) – neglect of duty by public servants: Criminal liability attaches only for willful neglect of statutory duties under the SC/ST Act and Rules. The law requires a prior administrative enquiry to recommend prosecution, ensuring that mere dissatisfaction with an officer’s pace or choices does not morph into criminal proceedings.
Taking cognizance: The judicial act of applying mind to material to proceed against an accused. For Section 4(2), cognizance without administrative recommendation is prohibited.
Arrest discretion: Whether and when to arrest is a policing decision governed by statute and judicially evolved safeguards; courts cannot command arrests of specified individuals.

Caveats noted by the Court

The Court did not conclusively rule on whether the FIRs themselves were vitiated by improper influence. It observed that the petitioners’ version appeared “quite probable” but stopped short of a definitive finding in these petitions.
The allegations of bias, misuse of office, and coercion—including WhatsApp communications and directions to register cases—are to be examined in the Vigilance enquiry ordered by the Court.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

This judgment is an important restatement of statutory boundaries and institutional propriety in the administration of the SC/ST Act. It delivers three clear messages:

No shortcuts on externment: Section 10’s extraordinary power cannot be invoked without a complaint or police report, without verifying that the action concerns a scheduled/identified area, and without reasons demonstrating a genuine likelihood of an atrocity under Chapter II. Routine altercations do not, without more, satisfy that threshold.
Administrative enquiry is mandatory for Section 4(2): Consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2024, prosecutions for neglect of duty against public servants under the SC/ST Act require a prior administrative enquiry recommendation. Courts cannot bypass this safeguard, nor can prosecutorial zeal substitute for it.
Arrest belongs to the IO’s domain: Courts cannot direct arrests or punish police for not arresting in the absence of statutory grounds. Judicial oversight must respect investigative autonomy.

By setting aside the impugned orders and ordering an independent vigilance enquiry, the High Court protects both the integrity of the SC/ST Act’s protective framework and the procedural rights of those subject to its operation, while reinforcing constitutional values of fairness, separation of functions, and accountability. The ruling will likely guide Special Courts and police in Tamil Nadu on the cautious, statute-compliant use of externment and on the circumscribed path to prosecute public servants for alleged neglect under the Act.

Keywords

SC/ST Act; Section 10; externment; Section 4(2); neglect of duty; administrative enquiry; sine qua non; scheduled areas; identified areas; investigative discretion; arrest; suo motu; Madras High Court; vigilance enquiry; BNSS; BNS.