Recent Developments

To curb the misuse of Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities POA) Act, 1989, Supreme Court in March 2018 diluted the Act in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs State of Maharashtra case.

♤ Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court laid down safeguards, including provisions for anticipatory bail and a “preliminary enquiry” on whether complaint under the 1989 law is “frivolous or motivated” before registering a case.

♤ FIR: Neither is an FIR to be immediately registered nor are arrests to be made without a preliminary inquiry. An arrest could only be made if there is “credible” information and police officer has “reason to believe” that an offence was committed.

♤ Permission: Even if a preliminary inquiry was held and a case registered, arrest is not necessary, and that no public servant is to be arrested without the written permission of the appointing authority.

This judgment had triggered widespread protests and violence and the government had to amend the Act to negate the effect of the apex court ruling. In August 2018, amendment restored the bar against anticipatory bail and nullifying the apex court verdict.

♤ A new section 18A was inserted in the Act of 1989, which does away with the court-imposed requirements of undertaking preliminary inquiry and of procuring approval prior to making an arrest.

♤ It also asserted that in cases under the Atrocities Act, no procedure other than that specified under the Act and Cr. P. C. shall apply.

Later on, Supreme court reserved its verdict on the petitions challenging the validity of 2018 amendments to The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It restored the earlier position of the law by recalling two directions in the March, 2018 verdict, which provided no absolute bar on grant of anticipatory bail and prior inquiry before effecting arrest of public servant and

private individual under the Act.