English
English
English
Supreme Court declines to revisit stringent SC/ST Act provisions (Img: X)
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The plea included the provisions strengthened by the 2018 amendment.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymala Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition filed by Brijbhushan Saini. The court said adequate safeguards already exist against possible misuse of the law and declined to revisit its earlier ruling upholding the amendment.
The plea argued that provisions of the SC/ST Act violate fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution and sought safeguards against arbitrary arrests and alleged misuse.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Hari Shankar Jain argued that the law’s stringent provisions had led to arrests and alleged malicious prosecution. He also questioned restrictions on anticipatory bail, arguing that the provisions could encourage the filing of false FIRs.
Jain referred to the alleged distribution of Rs 493 crore in compensation under the Act and questioned the legal basis for such payments. He argued that the provisions amounted to "reverse discrimination" and were "further creating a divide in society".
The bench, however, pointed out that the issues raised had already been examined by the Supreme Court.
The 2018 amendment followed the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment in Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra, which had introduced safeguards involving preliminary inquiry and approval before arrest in certain circumstances.
Parliament later inserted Section 18A, removing the requirement of a preliminary inquiry before registration of an FIR, doing away with prior approval for arrest and restoring the statutory bar on anticipatory bail.
The Supreme Court subsequently upheld the constitutional validity of the amendment in Prithvi Raj Chauhan v Union of India on February 10, 2020.
Justice Bagchi said safeguards governing arrests under general criminal procedure would continue to apply while dealing with special statutes. Referring to the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar, she said, "Section 35 BNSS will also be a relevant consideration whenever an arrest is effected under the special law".
The bench also stressed that courts retain the power to examine individual cases. Justice Bagchi noted, "Courts have the right to examine at least whether a prima facie case is made out", while Justice Mohana pointed out that an FIR invoking the SC/ST Act could still be quashed on a case-to-case basis.
When Jain argued that the restrictions on anticipatory bail infringed Article 21, Justice Bagchi said such legislative choices fall within Parliament’s domain. "We cannot sit in the armchair of the legislator," she observed.
The bench ultimately dismissed the plea, leaving the 2018 amendment in place while individual allegations of misuse or unlawful arrest remain open to judicial examination.
