Enough safeguards in place: Supreme Court rejects plea challenging provisions of SC/ST Act

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL challenging provisions of the SC/ST Act, 1989. The plea had claimed the law breached fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22.

In Short

• Top court declines to reconsider 2020 ruling upholding amended SC/ST Act
• Justice J Bagchi says BNSS arrest safeguards apply under special laws
• CJI-led Bench stresses courts can examine prima facie cases individually closely

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 through the 2018 amendment. The court held that sufficient safeguards already exist against possible misuse of the law and declined to reconsider its earlier judgment upholding the amendment.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kan, Justice Joymala Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition filed by Brijbhushan Saini.

The plea alleged 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 of the statute.

Articles 14, 21 and 22 collectively safeguard equality before law, life and personal liberty, and protections against arbitrary arrest and detention.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Hari Shankar Jain argued that the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act have resulted in arrests and alleged malicious prosecution.

He questioned the statutory restrictions on anticipatory bail and contended that the provisions could encourage the filing of false FIRs.

Jain also referred to the alleged distribution of Rs 493 crore in compensation under the SC/ST Act and questioned the legal basis for such payments. He argued that such 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 considered by the Supreme Court.

The 2018 amendment was enacted after the court's 2018 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 introduced Section 18A through the 2018 amendment, removing the requirement of a preliminary inquiry before registration of an FIR, dispensing with prior approval for arrest and restoring the statutory bar on anticipatory bail.

The constitutional validity of the amendment was later upheld by the Supreme Court in Prithvi Raj Chauhan v Union of India on February 10, 2020.

The present bench noted that the judgment had already laid down safeguards and declined the request to revisit it.

Justice Bagchi also observed that protections governing arrest under general criminal procedure would remain relevant while dealing with arrests under 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 CJI-led bench further 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", with Justice Mohana pointing out that an FIR invoking the SC/ST Act could still be quashed on a case-to-case basis.

When Jain argued that the statutory restrictions on anticipatory bail infringed Article 21, Justice Bagchi said such legislative choices fell within the domain of Parliament. "We cannot sit in the armchair of the legislator," she observed.

The bench ultimately dismissed the plea, holding that existing judicial safeguards were sufficient.

The ruling leaves the 2018 amendment and its stringent provisions in place, while individual allegations of misuse or unlawful arrest remain open to examination by courts on their facts.

- Ends
With agency/LiveLaw inputs