Supreme Court Declines Plea Against 2018 Amendments to SC/ST Act, Says Safeguards Already in Place
The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the 2018 amendments to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, declining to reopen the issue after the amendments had already been upheld by the court in 2020. The judgment was delivered on September 22 by a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana.
The petition was filed by Brijbhushan Saini and challenged several provisions of the SC/ST Act, including Section 18A, which was inserted by Parliament through the 2018 amendment. The petitioners argued that the stringent provisions could lead to arbitrary arrests and misuse and raised concerns under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
A central issue was the statutory restriction on anticipatory bail in cases under the SC/ST Act. The 2018 amendment also removed the requirement of a preliminary inquiry before registration of an FIR and eliminated the requirement of prior approval before arrest of an accused. These changes restored the position that Parliament intended after an earlier Supreme Court judgment had introduced safeguards concerning arrests and preliminary inquiries.
The controversy dates back to the Supreme Court’s March 2018 decision in Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra. In that case, the Court had directed that a preliminary inquiry be conducted in certain circumstances before registration of an FIR and required approval before arrest of a public servant. It also held that anticipatory bail could be granted in appropriate cases where a prima facie case was not established.
Following the 2018 judgment, Parliament enacted amendments introducing Section 18A. The provision expressly stated that no preliminary inquiry would be necessary for registration of an FIR and that prior approval would not be required for arrest. It also restored the statutory restriction on anticipatory bail under the Act.
The constitutional validity of these amendments was subsequently examined in Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India. On February 10, 2020, a three-judge Bench upheld the amendments. The present Bench relied on that earlier decision and declined the petitioners’ request to reconsider it.
During the hearing, the petitioners argued that the restrictions on anticipatory bail amounted to what they described as “reverse discrimination” and that the law was susceptible to misuse. They also referred to low conviction rates and raised questions concerning compensation distributed under the statutory framework.
The Bench, however, pointed to existing judicial safeguards. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita remains relevant when an arrest is made under a special statute, referring to the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar. The Court also indicated that judges can examine whether a prima facie case exists and can intervene in individual cases where warranted.
Justice Bagchi further indicated that the possibility of misuse in individual cases does not by itself require reconsideration of legislation already upheld by a three-judge Bench. Justice V. Mohana also noted that an FIR invoking the SC/ST Act could be challenged and potentially quashed on its individual facts.
The ruling therefore leaves the 2018 amendments, including Section 18A and its restrictions concerning anticipatory bail, intact. At the same time, the Court’s observations make clear that individual arrests, FIRs and allegations of misuse remain subject to judicial scrutiny on a case-by-case basis.
