Arun Mishra, J. - (1.) The Union of India has filed the instant petition for review of the judgment and order dated 20.3.2018 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.416 of 2018. This Court while dealing with the provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989') has issued guidelines in paragraph 83 of the judgment, which are extracted hereunder:- "83. Our conclusions are as follows: i) Proceedings in the present case are clear abuse of process of court and are quashed. ii) There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. We approve the view taken and approach of the Gujarat High Court in Pankaj D Suthar (supra) and Dr. N.T. Desai (supra) and clarify the judgments of this Court in Balothia (supra) and Manju Devi (supra); iii) In view of acknowledged abuse of law of arrest in cases under the Atrocities Act, arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by the S.S.P. which may be granted in appropriate cases if considered necessary for reasons recorded. Such reasons must be scrutinized by the Magistrate for permitting further detention. iv) To avoid false implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted by the DSP concerned to find out whether the allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act and that the allegations are not frivolous or motivated. v) Any violation of direction (iii) and (iv) will be actionable by way of disciplinary action as well as contempt. The above directions are prospective."
(2.) This Court, while passing the judgment under review, has observed in paragraph 32 thus: "32. This Court is not expected to adopt a passive or negative role and remain bystander or a spectator if violation of rights is observed. It is necessary to fashion new tools and strategies so as to check injustice and violation of fundamental rights. No procedural technicality can stand in the way of enforcement of fundamental rights [Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. UOI, 1984 3 SCC 161, para 13] . There are enumerable decisions of this Court where this approach has been adopted and directions issued with a view to enforce fundamental rights which may sometimes be perceived as legislative in nature. Such directions can certainly be issued and continued till an appropriate legislation is enacted [Vishakha versus State of Rajasthan, 1997 6 SCC 241, para 16; Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. UOI,1983 2 SCC 244; Common Cause v. UOI, 1996 1 SCC 753; M.C. Mehta v. State of T.N., 1996 6 SCC 756] . Role of this Court travels beyond merely dispute settling and directions can certainly be issued which are not directly in conflict with a valid statute [Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. UOI, 1998 4 SCC 409, para 48] . Power to declare law carries with it, within the limits of duty, to make law when none exists [Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham, 2012 1 SCC 333, para 18[Note: For convenience, the cases/citations in the extracts have been renumbered.] .
(3.) Question has been raised by the Union of India that when the Court does not accept the legislative and specific provisions of law passed by the legislature and only the legislature has the power to amend those provisions if the Court finds provisions are not acceptable to it, it has to be struck them down being violative of fundamental rights or in case of deficiency to point out to the legislature to correct the same.;