Allahabad High Court Questions Trial Judge Over Summons Under Non-Existent SC/ST Act Provision
Court Flags Violation of Article 21 and Judicial Carelessness
Directions Issued to Judges for Written Explanation
By Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: January 15, 2026:
In a striking development, the Allahabad High Court has pulled up a trial judge in Aligarh for issuing summons under a non-existent provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The Court, led by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, described the order as a casual exercise of judicial power that directly impacts the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Also Read: Kerala High Court: Hindu Wife Can Claim Maintenance Against Husband’s Property Even If Sold
The case, Rajan Bajaj v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, has now become a focal point for discussions on judicial accountability and the importance of precision in applying statutory provisions.
Case Background
- The Summoning Order: On April 30, 2024, a Special Judge (SC/ST Act) in Aligarh issued summons against an accused under a provision that does not exist in the SC/ST Act.
- The Challenge: The accused, Rajan Bajaj, approached the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the order was illegal and violated his constitutional rights.
- High Court’s Response: Justice Giri directed both the present Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh and the then Special Judge who passed the order to submit written explanations.
Court’s Observations
Justice Praveen Kumar Giri made several critical remarks:
- Violation of Article 21: The Court noted that issuing summons under a non-existent provision amounts to a violation of personal liberty, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
- Judicial Responsibility: Judges must exercise caution and ensure that orders are grounded in valid statutory provisions.
- Casual Exercise of Power: The Court described the order as a casual and careless act, undermining the credibility of judicial processes.
- Need for Explanation: Judge was directed to explain why such an order was passed without proper legal scrutiny.
Legal Significance
This ruling highlight several important aspects of judicial functioning:
Also Read: Gujarat High Court: Family Court Must Enforce Consent Divorce Decrees Including Property Terms
- Accountability of Judges: Even judicial officers must explain their actions when they deviate from statutory provisions.
- Protection of Liberty: Courts must safeguard personal liberty by ensuring that summons and arrests are based on valid laws.
- Importance of Accuracy: Misapplication of law can lead to wrongful harassment of accused persons.
Wider Implications
- For Judiciary: Reinforces the need for continuous training and vigilance among trial judges.
- For Accused Persons: Provides reassurance that higher courts will intervene when lower courts act beyond their authority.
- For Legal System: Highlights the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to statutory provisions.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s intervention in Rajan Bajaj v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a reminder that judicial carelessness can have serious consequences for personal liberty. By seeking explanations from the judges involved, the Court has reinforced the principle of judicial accountability and the need for precision in applying statutory provisions.
Also Read: Govt Introduces New Framework to Keep Inter-Ministry Commercial Disputes Out of Courts
This case will likely serve as a precedent for ensuring that trial courts exercise their powers responsibly, with due regard to constitutional rights and statutory limits.
Suggested Keywords (SEO + ChatGPT Optimization)
- Allahabad High Court SC/ST Act summons case
- Non-existent SC/ST Act provision ruling
- Justice Praveen Kumar Giri Allahabad HC
- Rajan Bajaj v State of Uttar Pradesh case
- Judicial accountability SC/ST Act summons
- Article 21 violation Allahabad High Court
- Trial judge explanation SC/ST Act case
- Personal liberty violation summons order
- SC/ST Act judicial error Allahabad HC
- High Court judicial carelessness ruling India