SC restores arrest rule in SC, ST cases

Says the court had overstretched its powers

■ THE COURT said that 2018 judgment encroached upon the legislature’s domain and was contrary to the concept of protective discrimination favouring society’s downtrodden.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that laws to curb social discrimination are misused on account of human failing, and not because the castes or tribes sought to be protected were taking advantage of the law.

“It cannot be said that a person’s caste is the cause (of filing a false report),” a bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat said. “It is due to the human failing. Caste is not attributable to such an act.”

“There is no presumption that the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may misuse the provisions of law as a class and it is not resorted to by the members of the upper castes or the elite,” Justice Mishra said.

This reversed a 2018 judgment diluting the provision for mandatory arrest and denial of anticipatory bail. The court said that 2018 judgment encroached upon the legislature’s domain and was contrary to the concept of protective discrimination favouring society’s downtrodden. The 2018 judgment had triggered protests, some violent, across the country.

The court said powers under Article 142 are “impermissible” as they do not conform to the laid down parameters on the exercise of powers under Article 142.

The 2018 judgment had directed “...in absence of any other independent offence calling for arrest… no arrest may be effected” without the permission of appointing authority in the case of a public servant or that of Senior Superintendent of Police in case of general public.”

■ On anticipatory bail, the court said that its consistent view is that if there is no prima facie case attracting provisions of the SC/ST law, the bar on the grant of anticipatory bail is not attracted.

Taking a dim view of the direction that a report by SC/ST could be registered only after a preliminary investigation, Justice Mishra said that such a situation would mean that “a report by upper caste has to be registered immediately and arrest can be made forthwith, whereas, in case of an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it would be conditional.”

Such a situation, the court said, would be “opposed to the protective discrimination”.

On anticipatory bail, the court said that its consistent view is that if there is no prima facie case attracting provisions of the SC/ST law, the bar on the grant of anticipatory bail is not attracted.

If a person apprehends he may be “arrested, harassed and implicated falsely”, he can approach the High Court for quashing the FIR.