Top court sets aside 2018 SC/ST verdict

A THREE-JUDGE BENCH COMPRISING QUASHED DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY A TWO-JUDGE BENCH IN MARCH 2018

NEWDELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside its 2018 verdict that diluted some provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, saying the earlier judgment violated the spirit of the Constitution.

A three-judge bench comprising justices Arun Mishra, MR Shah and BR Gavai quashed directions issued by a two-judge bench in March 2018 that banned automatic arrests and permitted anticipatory bail in cases filed under the law aimed at battling caste prejudices and violence.

“Members of the Scheduled Castes (SCS) and Scheduled Tribes (STS) have suffered for long, hence, if we cannot provide them protective discrimination beneficial to them, we cannot place them at all at a disadvantageous position that may be causing injury to them by widening inequality and against the very spirit of our Constitution,” the bench held.

The court said the 2018 judgment encroached upon the field reserved for the legislature and against the concept of protective discrimination in favour of downtrodden classes under Article 15(4) of the Constitution.

The bench said that if a cognisable offence -- where an arrest can be made without a warrant -is made out under the Act, then no preliminary inquiry was needed before filing an FIR (first information report), as directed in the 2018 judgment. “There is no such provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for preliminary inquiry or under the SC/ST Act, as such direction is impermissible”, the bench held.

In March 2018, a two-judge bench of justices A Goel and UU Lalit had virtually diluted some provisions of the SC/ST Act and held that safeguards were needed because the tough law was prone to misuse. The verdict not only scrapped the bar on anticipatory bail for an accused under the of SC/ST Act but also issued directions that prior approval of the appointing authority was required to arrest public servants under the Act. If the person was not a public servant, the approval of the local SSP would be mandatory.

Experts said though the government had already effectively reversed the 2018 SC judgment, Tuesday’s order would have an impact on a batch of petitions challenging the August 2018 amendments by the Centre. “The earlier judgment had created chaos and confusion as it contradicted an earlier judgment in Lalita Kumari case that made it mandatory to register an FIR in case of cognizable offence...,” said SC advocate Gyanant Singh.