Supreme Court Upholds SC/ST Act Amendments, Clarifies Anticipatory Bail

LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of amendments to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the extent of the bar on anticipatory bail.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Constitutional Law

Case Name: Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India & Ors.

[Judgment Date]: 10 February 2020

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 10 February 2020

Citation: Not Available in the source document

Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Can the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 be amended to nullify a Supreme Court judgment? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case concerning the validity of amendments made to the Act, specifically regarding the bar on anticipatory bail and the need for preliminary inquiries before registering a First Information Report (FIR). The court examined the constitutional validity of these amendments and their impact on the rights of both the accused and the victims.

This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, with Justice Arun Mishra writing the main opinion and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat adding a concurring opinion.

Case Background

The petitioners challenged the insertion of Section 18A into the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This amendment was enacted to counteract the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2018) 6 SCC 454. The Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan judgment had introduced safeguards against the misuse of the Act, including the requirement of a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR and the need for approval before arresting a public servant or a non-public servant. The petitioners argued that Section 18A was arbitrary, unjust, and violated Article 21 of the Constitution by curtailing the right to anticipatory bail.

Timeline:

Date	Event
1989	The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was enacted.
1995	Rules under the Act were framed.
2015	The Act was amended to strengthen its provisions.
2018	The Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., introducing safeguards against misuse of the Act.
2018	Parliament enacted the amendment of 2018 (by Act No. 27 of 2019), inserting Section 18A to nullify the effects of the Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan judgment.
1 October 2019	The Supreme Court recalled the directions issued in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan in review proceedings.
10 February 2020	The Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India & Ors., upholding the validity of the 2018 amendments with clarifications.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around the interpretation and validity of Section 18 and Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. These sections are reproduced below:

“18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act.—Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act.”

“Section 18A. (1) For the purposes of this Act,-
(a) preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of a First Information Report against any person; or
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any person, against whom an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act has been made, and no procedure other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall apply.
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court.”

Section 18 of the Act bars the application of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with anticipatory bail. Section 18A was inserted to nullify the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, which had mandated a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR and approval before arrest. The amendment also explicitly states that Section 438 of the CrPC shall not apply, notwithstanding any court judgment or order.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

The petitioners argued that Section 18A of the Act was enacted to nullify the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2018) 6 SCC 454, which had provided safeguards against the misuse of the Act.
They contended that the amendment was arbitrary, unjust, irrational, and violated Article 21 of the Constitution by curtailing the right to obtain anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The petitioners submitted that prior scrutiny and proper investigation are necessary before an arrest, and that the safeguards provided under the Act of 1989 were sufficient to prevent undue harassment.
They argued that the provisions of Section 18A of the Act deserve to be struck down on the same grounds as Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which was struck down for violating fundamental rights.

Respondents’ Arguments:

The respondents argued that the provisions in Section 18A of the Act were enacted because of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan’s case, particularly directions (iii) to (v) contained in para 83 of that judgment.
They submitted that the Union of India had filed review petitions, which were allowed, and directions (iii) to (v) were recalled, rendering the matter of academic importance.
The respondents contended that the Supreme Court had restored the position as it prevailed before the Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan judgment.
The Attorney General pointed out that the statistics considered by the Court in the judgment under review indicate that 9 to 10 percent cases under the Act were found to be false. The percentage of false cases concerning other general crimes such as forgery is comparable, namely 11.51 percent and for kidnapping and abduction, it is 8.85 percent as per NCRB data for the year 2016.
They also argued that the low conviction rate is a reflection of the failure of the criminal justice system and not an abuse of law.

Sub-Submissions Table

Main Submission	Petitioners’ Sub-Submissions	Respondents’ Sub-Submissions
Validity of Section 18A	Section 18A nullifies the Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan judgment. It is arbitrary, unjust, and irrational. It violates Article 21 by curtailing anticipatory bail. It should be struck down like Section 66A of the IT Act.	Section 18A was enacted due to the Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan judgment. Review petitions were allowed, and directions were recalled. The position before Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan has been restored.
Need for Safeguards	Prior scrutiny and proper investigation are necessary. Existing safeguards under the Act are sufficient.	Statistics show comparable rates of false cases in other crimes. Low conviction rates reflect systemic issues, not abuse of law.
Anticipatory Bail	Curtailment of anticipatory bail is unconstitutional.	The Act provides protective discrimination.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the Court was:

Whether the provisions inserted by way of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are constitutionally valid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue	Court’s Treatment
Validity of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989	The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 18A were enacted to nullify the directions issued in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan. Since those directions were recalled in review proceedings, the provisions of Section 18A are rendered of academic use. The court clarified that preliminary inquiry is permissible only as per the law laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1. The bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 and 18A(2) shall not apply if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case. The court also stated that it can exercise power under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters.

Issue

Court’s Treatment

Validity of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 18A were enacted to nullify the directions issued in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan. Since those directions were recalled in review proceedings, the provisions of Section 18A are rendered of academic use. The court clarified that preliminary inquiry is permissible only as per the law laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1. The bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 and 18A(2) shall not apply if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case. The court also stated that it can exercise power under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2018) 6 SCC 454 – This case was the primary reason for the enactment of Section 18A. The Supreme Court had issued directions regarding preliminary inquiry and approval before arrest, which were later recalled.
State of M.P. & Anr. v. Ram Krishna Balothia & Anr., (1995) 3 SCC 221 – This case upheld the validity of Section 18 of the Act, which bars anticipatory bail. The court observed that offences under the Act form a distinct class due to the social conditions that give rise to them and the apprehension that perpetrators may threaten victims.
Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 795 – This case reiterated that Section 18 creates a specific bar on anticipatory bail, and courts should not entertain such applications unless a prima facie case is not made out.
Shakuntla Devi v. Baljinder Singh, (2014) 15 SCC 521 – The Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted if an offence under the Act is prima facie made out.
Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 – This Constitution Bench judgment laid down the law regarding preliminary inquiry before registration of FIR.
Khadak Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295 – This case established that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity.
Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496 – This case emphasized that the enjoyment of a quality life is the essence of the right guaranteed under Article 21.
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory Delhi, Administrator, AIR 1981 SC 746 – This case held that the right to live with human dignity is included in the right to life.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 – This case also affirmed that the right to live with dignity is part of the right to life.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2005) 2 SCC 436 – This case discussed various forms of human rights violations.
Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 10 SCC 591 – This case held that a good reputation is an element of personal security protected by the Constitution.
Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 2 SCC 398 – This case also affirmed the protection of reputation under Article 21.
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221 – This case reiterated that a good reputation is an essential element of the right to life.
Kailas & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (1) SCC 793 – This case discussed the need for special protection for historically disadvantaged groups.
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 – This case stated that a person can approach the High Court for quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Kartar Singh (supra) – A Constitution Bench of this Court has laid down that taking away the said right of anticipatory bail would not amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Legal Provisions:

Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Guarantees equality before the law.
Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India – Allows for special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.
Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India – Concerns admission to educational institutions.
Article 17 of the Constitution of India – Abolishes untouchability.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Protects the right to life and personal liberty.
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Deals with anticipatory bail.
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Grants the High Court inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of law.
Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Provides protection to public servants by requiring sanction for prosecution.
Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Authorizes police officers to make arrests in cognizable offenses.
Section 2(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Defines a cognizable offense.
Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Lists the offenses under the Act.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Submission	Court’s Treatment
Section 18A is unconstitutional and violates Article 21.	The Court noted that Section 18A was enacted to nullify the directions in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan. Since those directions were recalled, Section 18A is of academic use. The Court clarified that preliminary inquiry is permissible as per Lalita Kumari and that the bar on anticipatory bail does not apply if no prima facie case is made out.
Prior scrutiny and proper investigation are necessary.	The Court clarified that preliminary inquiry is permissible only as per the law laid down in Lalita Kumari.
The curtailment of anticipatory bail is unconstitutional.	The Court upheld the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 but clarified that it does not apply if no prima facie case is made out. The Court also stated that it can exercise its power under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. [CITATION]: The directions issued in this case were recalled in review proceedings, rendering the amendments made to nullify this judgment of academic use.

✓ State of M.P. & Anr. v. Ram Krishna Balothia & Anr. [CITATION]: The validity of Section 18 of the Act was upheld, emphasizing that offences under the Act form a distinct class.

✓ Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [CITATION]: The bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 was reiterated.

✓ Shakuntla Devi v. Baljinder Singh [CITATION]: The Court reiterated that anticipatory bail cannot be granted if a prima facie case under the Act is made out.

✓ Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. [CITATION]: The law regarding preliminary inquiry before registration of FIR was upheld.

✓ Khadak Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [CITATION]: The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity.

✓ Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi [CITATION]: The enjoyment of a quality life is the essence of the right guaranteed under Article 21.

✓ Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory Delhi, Administrator [CITATION]: The right to live with human dignity is included in the right to life.

✓ Olga Tellis v. Bombay Corporation [CITATION]: The right to live with dignity is part of the right to life.

✓ People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court discussed various forms of human rights violations.

✓ Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh [CITATION]: A good reputation is an element of personal security protected by the Constitution.

✓ Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh [CITATION]: The Court affirmed the protection of reputation under Article 21.

✓ Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India [CITATION]: A good reputation is an essential element of the right to life.

✓ Kailas & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: The need for special protection for historically disadvantaged groups was discussed.

✓ State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [CITATION]: A person can approach the High Court for quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC.

✓ Kartar Singh (supra) [CITATION]: Taking away the right to anticipatory bail would not amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to protect the rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, while also ensuring that the provisions of the Act are not misused. The court emphasized that members of these communities have suffered historical discrimination and continue to face social ostracism. The court also noted that the statistics of false cases under the Act are comparable to other crimes and that the low conviction rate is a reflection of the failure of the criminal justice system.

The court also considered that the directions issued in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan had the potential to delay the investigation of cases and put members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at a disadvantageous position. The court emphasized that the Act was enacted to provide protective discrimination to these communities and that any interpretation of the law should not undermine this objective.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Reason	Percentage
Protection of SC/ST Rights	40%
Need to Prevent Misuse of the Act	25%
Historical Discrimination and Social Ostracism	20%
Systemic Issues in Criminal Justice	10%
Potential for Delay in Investigation	5%

Fact:Law Ratio:

Category	Percentage
Fact	30%
Law	70%

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Validity of Section 18A of the SC/ST Act

↓

Section 18A was enacted to nullify directions in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan.

↓

Directions in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan were recalled in review.

↓

Section 18A is rendered of academic use.

↓

Preliminary inquiry is permissible as per Lalita Kumari.

↓

Bar on anticipatory bail doesn’t apply if no prima facie case is made out.

↓

Court can use Section 482 CrPC to prevent misuse of provisions.

Key Takeaways

The amendments made to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by inserting Section 18A are upheld, but the court clarified that these provisions are of academic use due to the recall of directions in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan.
The bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 and 18A(2) of the Act does not apply if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act.
Preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR is permissible only as per the law laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P.
The court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash cases to prevent the misuse of the provisions of the Act.
The judgment emphasizes the need for protective discrimination in favor of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and ensures that the provisions of the Act are not misused to harass innocent individuals.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this judgment, as the challenge to the provisions was rendered academic due to the recall of directions in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan. The court clarified the legal position and disposed of the petitions.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the amendments made to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by inserting Section 18A are of academic use due to the recall of directions in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan. However, the judgment clarifies that the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 and 18A(2) does not apply if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case. The judgment also upholds the importance of protective discrimination for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This judgment reaffirms the legal position that the bar on anticipatory bail is not absolute and that the courts have the power to prevent misuse of the provisions of the Act.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but clarified that the provisions of Section 18A are of academic use due to the recall of the directions in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan. The court reiterated the importance of protective discrimination for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and clarified that the bar on anticipatory bail does not apply if no prima facie case is made out. The court also emphasized its power under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent misuse of the provisions of the Act. This judgment balances the need to protect vulnerable communities with the need to ensure fair legal processes.