The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that no accused can be summoned under the SC/ST Act without being given a prior opportunity to be heard, reinforcing a foundational principle of natural justice in criminal proceedings. This ruling clarifies the mandatory nature of hearing under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and sets a binding precedent for trial courts across Uttar Pradesh.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, Raman Verma @ Raman Kumar and two others, were named as accused in Complaint Case No. 58 of 2025 filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur, issued a summoning order on 12.03.2026 without affording the applicants any opportunity to present their side or file objections.
Key Facts
- The complaint was filed on 15.01.2025 alleging offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(i), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act
- No prior notice or opportunity to show cause was issued to the applicants before the summoning order
- The applicants had not been examined as witnesses or given any chance to contest the prima facie case
- The complaint was based on allegations of social boycott and intimidation, with no independent corroboration provided
Procedural History
- 15.01.2025: Complaint filed before Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur
- 12.03.2026: Trial Court issued summoning order against applicants without hearing
- 17.03.2026: Applicants filed Application U/s 528 BNSS No. 1743 of 2026 before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
- 04.05.2026: Hearing before Justice Brij Raj Singh
Relief Sought
The applicants sought quashing of the summoning order dated 12.03.2026 on the ground that it violated the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the principles of natural justice.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits a Magistrate to issue a summoning order under the SC/ST Act without providing the accused an opportunity to be heard prior to such issuance.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicants
Learned counsel contended that the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS mandates that the Magistrate shall, before issuing summons, consider any objection raised by the accused and afford a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The absence of such opportunity rendered the summoning order illegal and void ab initio. Reliance was placed on Yash Tuteja v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 533), Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate (2024) 7 SCC 61, and Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1221), wherein the Supreme Court emphasized that procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed even in cases involving serious allegations. The Allahabad High Court’s own decision in Mohd. Muzayyn v. State of U.P. (2025:AHC:65284) was cited to reinforce that summoning without hearing is a jurisdictional error.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Advocate conceded that no hearing was accorded but argued that the nature of the SC/ST Act warranted expeditious action and that the accused could raise objections at a later stage. He submitted that the summoning order was merely a procedural step and did not prejudicially affect the rights of the applicants.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of Section 223(1) BNSS, particularly its first proviso, which states: "Provided that the Magistrate shall, before issuing summons, consider any objection raised by the accused and afford a reasonable opportunity to be heard." The Court held that this provision is not directory but mandatory, and its violation strikes at the root of fair trial.
"The right to be heard is not a mere formality; it is the very essence of natural justice. To deny it at the threshold of criminal proceedings, even in cases under special statutes, is to undermine the constitutional guarantee under Article 21."
The Court distinguished the State’s argument that urgency justifies bypassing hearing, noting that the Supreme Court in Yash Tuteja had explicitly rejected such reasoning, stating that "the gravity of the offence cannot override the procedure prescribed by law." The Court further observed that the Trial Court’s failure to even record whether objections were invited or considered rendered the order non est in law.
The Court also referenced its own precedent in Mohd. Muzayyn, where it had held that summoning orders passed without hearing are liable to be set aside irrespective of the nature of the offence.
The Verdict
The application was allowed. The summoning order dated 12.03.2026 issued by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur, is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order within four weeks from today, after providing the applicants a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Court directed the Office to communicate this order to the Trial Court forthwith.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Hearing Is Non-Negotiable at Summoning Stage
- Practitioners must now insist on a written record of hearing being conducted before any summoning order is passed
- Any summoning order lacking a record of opportunity to be heard is void and subject to immediate quashing under Section 528 BNSS
- Courts cannot rely on "subsequent opportunity" to cure this defect - the violation occurs at the time of issuance
SC/ST Act Does Not Override Procedural Safeguards
- The special nature of the SC/ST Act does not justify bypassing statutory hearing requirements under BNSS
- Even in cases involving serious social offences, the procedure under Section 223(1) BNSS is mandatory
- Prosecutors must now prepare for pre-summoning hearings as a routine part of case preparation
Procedural Compliance Is a Jurisdictional Requirement
- Failure to comply with Section 223(1) proviso renders the summoning order jurisdictionally defective
- Such errors cannot be cured by appellate courts or subsequent proceedings
- Defence counsel should file Section 528 BNSS applications immediately upon receipt of a summoning order without hearing
