The Rajasthan High Court has sought explanations from former investigating officers and supervisory authorities regarding a delay of approximately 26 to 27 months in the completion of an investigation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The matter, titled Jitendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors, came before a bench comprising Justice Shubha Mehta. The petitioner had filed an FIR in Bharatpur in 2024 under both the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act, alleging assault and attempt to murder. A counter FIR was subsequently filed by the accused at the same police station. Despite the passage of over two years, no charge sheet had been filed in the case.
The petitioner contended that the investigating officer in the matter had been changed five to six times during the pendency of the investigation. Each time a new investigating officer was appointed, the petitioner was called for verification, which was described as harassing. It was further submitted that, as per Rule 7(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, the charge sheet in cases under the Act must be filed within 60 days of the FIR. In the event of any delay, the investigating officer is required to record the reasons for such delay in writing.
Additionally, Rule 7(3) of the same Rules mandates a quarterly review of the status of all pending investigations under the Act. This review involves high-ranking state officials and is intended to ensure timely progress. The petitioner argued that neither had a charge sheet been filed within the prescribed 60-day period, nor had any reasons for the delay been documented by the investigating officers.
The present investigating officer, who was appointed on July 23, 2026, informed the court that a factual report had already been submitted before the concerned judicial magistrate and that the final investigation report would be filed within two weeks. However, the bench expressed concern that despite the lapse of nearly 26 to 27 months, no satisfactory explanation had been provided for the prolonged delay in the investigation.
Justice Shubha Mehta observed that the reasons for such an extended delay could only be elucidated by the former investigating officers who had handled the case and their supervisory authorities. Accordingly, the court directed all former investigating officers involved in the case to file affidavits explaining the reasons for their failure to adhere to the 60-day timeline stipulated under Rule 7(2) of the Rules.
The bench further directed the authorities referred to under Rule 7(3) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, to explain the reasons behind their non-compliance with the mandatory quarterly review mechanism. These authorities are required to conduct a review of pending investigations every three months, involving senior state officials, to monitor progress and prevent undue delays.
The court clarified that the affidavits must be filed on the next date of hearing, which has been fixed for September 7, 2026. The matter remains pending for further orders on that date.
The proceedings underscore the court’s emphasis on accountability in investigations under the SC/ST Act, particularly concerning adherence to statutory timelines and supervisory oversight mechanisms designed to prevent protracted delays in cases involving atrocities against members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.