PTI, NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today justified its March 20 verdict on the SC/ST Act, saying even Parliament cannot allow the arrest of a person without a fair procedure and asserted that it has protected the fundamental rights to life and liberty of innocents by ordering prior scrutiny of complaints.
The Centre opposed the verdict saying that courts cannot order to supplant or substitute a provision in the law enacted by the Parliament.
A bench of Justices Adarsh Goel and U U Lalit said, "we are not living in a civilised society, if we allow an innocent to go behind bar on a one-sided version".
The bench deferred the hearing of the matter after the summer vacation and said it would hear all the parties concerned in detail.
Justice Goel, who is heading the bench will retire on July 6, 2018, soon after the court reopens after summer vacation on July 2.
During the hearing, the bench said, "There are series of judgements which say that Article 21 (Right to life and liberty) of the Constitution has to be dealt in every provision. Article 21, cannot be denied even by Parliament. Even our Constitution does not allow the arrest of an individual without a provision".
Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for Centre, cited various apex court verdicts and said that courts cannot supplant or substitute or fill in the gap of the provisions in a law enacted by the Parliament.
"In March 20 verdict, we have dealt previous verdicts of this court which said that Article 21 needs to be protected. Without scrutiny, how can we allow arrest of an individual on a one-sided version," the bench said.
The top court said that fundamental rights of an individual cannot be protected if an innocent is jailed on a complaint without its prior scrutiny.
"No Parliament can allow arrest without a fair procedure. Fundamental right to life and liberty cannot be denied even by the Parliament. Otherwise, we are not living in a civilised society, if we allow arrest of an innocent," it said.
Venugopal said that the Constitution and various apex court verdicts dealt with fundamental right to life and right to dignity.
"Right to dignity is also associated with Right to Job but from where in a developing economy can we provide jobs to everyone. In the welfare state concept, it is very difficult and courts have to look into every aspect," the Attorney General said and added that there were various verdicts of courts which were inconsistent to each other.
The bench, while referring to Kumari Madhuri Patil case of 1995 that had dealt with a process of verification of caste certificate, said the court had carved out a complete machinery as there was no existing procedure in place.