Supreme Court upholds the constitutional validity of SC/ST Atrocities Act

The Supreme Court on Monday said that unless the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are enforced in true letter and spirit, the dream of establishing a class-less society would remain a mirage.

A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and S Ravindra Bhat upheld the validity of 2018 amendment to the Atrocities Act, brought in to nullify a judgement that had diluted its provisions.

With the judgement, it would mean that there would not be a preliminary enquiry before registration of the FIR, and there would not be a provision for anticipatory bail as well for the offender.

The courts, however, can quash FIRs in exceptional circumstances, the top court said.

The main judgement was authored by Justice Mishra and Justice Saran.

In his separate and concurring judgement, Justice Bhat said pre-arrest bail can be granted in exceptional cases where its denial would result into miscarriage of justice.

The new provision stated Section 438 (pre-arrest bail) of the CrPC would not apply to a case under the Atrocities Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any court.

Parliament had on August 9, 2018, passed the Amendment Act to overturn the apex court judgement of March 20, 2018.

The amendment was brought in to nullify the effect of the judgement which had put in certain safeguards like preliminary inquiry before registering FIR and prior approval of the authorities before the arrest of the accused in cases registered under the Atrocities Act in view of "rampant misuse" of the law.

Since the judgement caused a huge political furore, the Union government, apart from bringing in the amendment, filed a review petition and pressed for restoring the stringent provisions.

On October 1, 2019, the top court had recalled the March 20, 2018 judgement, saying the directions issued by a two-judge bench amounted to "encroaching on a field which is reserved for the legislature" and "would cause several legal complications", besides "delay in timely completion of the investigations".

However, two PILs, filed by Prathvi Raj Chauhan and Priya Sharma, had remained pending.

Reserving its judgement on October 3, 2019, the bench had said, "We are not diluting provisions. We will not pass any long order. We have already said more (in review judgement)."

At the same time, the bench said preliminary enquiry can be undertaken in certain cases as those stood in terms of Lalita Kumari judgement (2013).

"We cannot curtail rights guaranteed under Article 21 (Life and Liberty) of the Constitution. Those are related to questions of individual liberty," the bench also said.