Supreme Court: Refuses SC/ST Act 2018 Amendment Challenge

• The Supreme Court refused to entertain a challenge against the 2018 amendments to the SC/ST Act, 1989.
• The 2018 amendment restored the bar on anticipatory bail and removed the requirement for a preliminary inquiry before FIR registration.
• Petitioners argued the Act led to reverse discrimination and that compensation invited false complaints, but the Court was not convinced.
• The Court affirmed that sufficient safeguards exist within the law, including judicial power to assess prima facie cases.
• This decision confirms the continued enforceability of the SC/ST Act 2018 amendment validity, including Section 18A.

This decision by the Supreme Court firmly establishes the continued enforceability of the 2018 amendments to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

India's Supreme Court recently declined to entertain a petition that sought to challenge the validity of the 2018 amendments to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This decision effectively reinforces the provisions introduced by the amendment, which include the restoration of a bar on anticipatory bail and the removal of any requirement for a preliminary inquiry before the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under the Act.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana heard the matter. The petitioner had contended that the amended Act was leading to what they termed 'reverse discrimination' against individuals from other castes. However, the Court did not find this argument persuasive, indicating that adequate safeguards are already embedded within the existing legal framework to prevent misuse.

The challenged 2018 amendment, specifically through the introduction of Section 18A, was enacted in response to a prior Supreme Court judgment. In its 2018 ruling in *Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra*, the apex court had introduced certain safeguards into the Act. These safeguards included the necessity of a preliminary inquiry before an FIR could be registered and the provision for anticipatory bail in cases filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

The legislative amendment of 2018 was designed to counteract these judicial directives. By restoring the original stringent provisions, the government aimed to strengthen the protection offered by the Act to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, ensuring that the process for filing complaints and seeking justice remained robust and unhindered by preliminary procedural requirements or pre-arrest bail.

Beyond the claim of reverse discrimination, the petitioner also raised concerns regarding the compensation scheme for victims under the SC/ST Act. Counsel for the petitioner highlighted that a substantial sum of ₹493 crore had been disbursed as compensation, arguing that this system was, in effect, 'inviting people to lodge FIRs.' This submission suggested that the compensation mechanism could incentivize false complaints.

However, the Supreme Court remained unconvinced by these arguments. The bench reiterated that the law already provides sufficient mechanisms for courts to assess whether a prima facie case exists under the Act. This judicial oversight, according to the Court, serves as a crucial check against potential misuse, rendering the petitioner's concerns about compensation and reverse discrimination insufficient grounds to challenge the SC/ST Act 2018 amendment validity.

This decision by the Supreme Court firmly establishes the continued enforceability of the 2018 amendments to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. For legal practitioners and individuals alike, this means that the bar on anticipatory bail remains in effect for offenses under the Act, and there is no mandatory requirement for a preliminary inquiry before an FIR is registered. The Court's refusal to entertain the plea underscores its stance that the existing legal framework, including Section 18A of the SC/ST Act, contains adequate safeguards.

The ruling sends a clear message that challenges to these specific provisions, aimed at strengthening protections for vulnerable communities, have been definitively rejected at the highest judicial level. Consequently, the legal landscape surrounding the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 continues to operate under the more stringent conditions reinstated by the 2018 legislative changes.

This ruling confirms the continued enforceability of the 2018 SC/ST Act amendments. Lawyers must advise clients that anticipatory bail remains barred and preliminary inquiries are not required before FIR registration under the Act, as challenges to these provisions have been rejected by the Supreme Court.

Source: Original reporting via Bar & Bench