On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 2018 amendment to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act) that rules out any provision for anticipatory bail for a person who is accused of atrocities against SC/STs.
Supreme Court upholds SCST Act amendment On Monday
A bench of justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and Ravinda Bhat, delivered this judgement.
Previous year, in the month of October, the bench had given a hint that it is going to uphold amendments that has been made by the Centre in SC/ST Act in order to restore immediate arrest as well as ban anticipatory bail.
“We are not diluting any provisions… these provisions will not be struck down. Law should be as it was… They will be left as it was prior to the judgement on review petition and amendments in the Act,” it observes.
Parliament had, by an amendment to the SC/ST Act, presented section 18A in the year 2018. The government on the other hand, had resorted to this step to undo the March 2018 ruling of the Supreme Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs The State of Maharashtra.
In that judgment, the court had countered to accusations of abuse of the SC/SC Act as well as filing of wrong cases by presenting some defences. Leading among them was that there would be no unconditional bar on grant of anticipatory bail to a person who is accused under this law.
In the meantime, the court also instructed an initial inquiry preceding to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) along with the prerequisite of investigation officer getting further approval prior to effecting an arrest.
Whereas, on the other hand, in case of a public servant, the court had stated that the arrest can be done only after the authorization of the appointing authority as well as in case of a non-public servant, after getting the approval by the Senior Superintendent of Police.
The judgment which practically diluted the provisions of the act had headed to extensive protests by Dalit communities.
Finally, the central government moved to file a review petition that was held against the judgment and in addition to that it also amended the SC/ST Act to get over the judgment of the court.
In the meantime, the petitions were filed against the amendment to the act on the basis that it violates the right to equality and life under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Last year in October, the Supreme Court had permitted the review petitions as well as overturned its March 2018 judgment successfully sanctioning the amendment act.
Leave a Reply