Supreme Court Rejects Plea Challenging SC/ST Act, Says Safeguards Exist Against Misuse

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, including those strengthened by the 2018 amendment, holding that sufficient safeguards exist against its possible misuse.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana declined to reconsider its earlier judgment upholding the 2018 amendment. The plea was filed by Brijbhushan Saini and challenged provisions of the law on the grounds that they allegedly violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

Petitioner Challenges Arrest Rules, Anticipatory Bail Bar

Appearing for Saini, advocate Hari Shankar Jain argued that the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act could result in arbitrary arrests and malicious prosecution. He questioned the statutory restrictions on anticipatory bail and argued that the law could facilitate the filing of false FIRs.

Jain also referred to the alleged distribution of ₹493 crore in compensation under the law and questioned the legal basis for such payments. He described the provisions as “reverse discrimination” and argued that they were “further creating a divide in society”.

The 2018 amendment was enacted after the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra, which had introduced safeguards including preliminary inquiry and approval before arrest in certain circumstances and held that anticipatory bail could be granted in appropriate cases.

Parliament subsequently enacted Section 18A, which removed the requirement of a preliminary inquiry before registration of an FIR, dispensed with prior approval for arrest and restored the statutory bar on anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court later upheld the constitutional validity of the amendment in Prithvi Raj Chauhan v Union of India on February 10, 2020. The bench on Tuesday noted that the earlier judgment had already addressed the safeguards and declined to revisit the issue.

SC Says Courts Can Examine Individual Cases

Justice Bagchi observed that safeguards governing arrests under general criminal procedure would continue to be relevant while dealing with arrests under special statutes.

Referring to the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar, she said, “Section 35 BNSS will also be a relevant consideration whenever an arrest is effected under the special law.” Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita deals with when police may arrest without a warrant.

The bench also stressed that courts retain the power to examine individual cases. Justice Bagchi said, “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 be quashed on a case-by-case basis.

When Jain argued that restrictions on anticipatory bail infringed Article 21, Justice Bagchi said such legislative choices fell within Parliament’s domain.

The bench ultimately dismissed the plea, leaving the 2018 amendment and its stringent provisions in force. At the same time, the court’s observations make clear that individual allegations of misuse, absence of a prima facie case or unlawful arrest can still be examined by courts on their facts.