Supreme Court refuses to budge from its stand on SC/ST Act changes

In a big relief to the Centre, the Supreme Court on Thursday said that it will not stay the provisions of the amended Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act till it hears the petitions challenging the said law.

The amendments, passed by the Parliament on August 9, 2018, followed a judgment by the Supreme Court on March 20 the same year making crucial changes in the SC/ST Act, which introduced double-level filter before lodging of a case under the 1989 Act and arrest of the accused.

To override the judgment, Centre got the Act amended in order to restore the early provisions that set aside the directions given by the Court. In addition, persons accused were not entitled to anticipatory bail under the new law, something that existed prior to the SC judgment.

Challenging the new set of amendments, two PILs objected to the abuse of power by the Centre to re-enact the same law found deficient by the apex court. Senior advocates Mohan Parasaran and Vikas Singh submitted that the new law must be stayed for the present as the government moved the amendments without awaiting the outcome on the review plea challenging the earlier SC decision.

The bench of Justices AK Sikri, S Abdul Nazeer, and MR Shah refused to pass any such order. It said, "No interim orders are called for at this stage." Attorney General KK Venugopal, present for the Centre, pointed out that the government had filed a review petition challenging the March 20 judgment on which notice was issued but the hearing could not proceed further. He handed out the questions of law arising in the review petition.

After going through the petition, the bench found out that the issues raised in the review petition were similar to the legal issues raised by the PIL petitioners.

The court said, "Since the outcome of the said review petition would have some bearings on these petitions, it would be appropriate if these petitions are also heard along with the review petition."

The court referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to decide to post the PILs along with the review petitions. The bench preferred having one of the judges who formed part of the March 20 judgment -- Justice UU Lalit -- to be part of the bench as he would be in a better position to explain the basis for arriving at the previous decision. The March 20 judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Adarsh Goel (since retired) and Justice Lalit.

The March 2018 judgment proceeded on the basis that the 1989 law was prone to misuse as the accused were not entitled to anticipatory bail. To prevent further victimisation of accused, the judgment introduced safeguards which made it mandatory for a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) level officer to scutinise whether the charges under the complaint were made out. Again, once this exercise is complete, prior to the arrest of the accused, the police were to seek permission from the appointing authority in cases where the accused is a public servant. However, in the case of common citizens, the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) rank officer was to give permission in writing for the arrest of the accused.

What The Amendments Say

• No provision for anticipatory bail for anyone accused of atrocities against SC/STs, notwithstanding any court order
• Provide that no preliminary inquiry required for registering a criminal case and an arrest under this law would not be subject to any approval
• SC was hearing pleas alleging that the two Houses had “arbitrarily” decided to amend the law