Login With Google
Supreme Court upholds changes to SC/ST atrocities law
Why in news?
- SC recently upheld a 2018 amendment which barred persons accused of committing atrocities against those belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from getting anticipatory bail.
More in news
- The judgement was regarding the constitutionality of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act of 2018.
- Purpose of Section 18A: The sole purpose of Section 18A was to nullify a controversial March 20, 2018, judgment of the Supreme Court diluting the stringent anti-bail provisions of the original Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989.
- March 20, 2018 Judgement:
(1) SC had held that there was no “absolute bar” on accused person obtaining anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, “if no prima facie is made out or if judicial scrutiny reveals the complaint to be prima facie malafide”.
(2) The March 20, 2018 judgment was a response to the court’s belief that the law was abused to file false complaints.
(3) The verdict had led to widespread violence. Consequently, Parliament amended the 1989 law and inserted Section 18A into it. Section 18A re-affirmed the original legislative bar on pre-arrest bail.
- Recalling the Judgment:
(1) Earlier, on October 1 last year, the SC had recalled the March 20, 2018 judgment in a review petition filed by the government.
(2) It had said it was against “basic human dignity” on the part of the March 20, 2018 judgment to treat the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as “a liar or crook”.
- Petitions against Section 18A: A number of petitions were filed in SC to declare Section 18A “arbitrary and unconstitutional”. All of them were dismissed by the Bench recently as without merit.
- Other Details of the latest Judgement:
(1) A High Court would also have an “inherent power” to grant anticipatory bail in cases in which prima facie an offence under the anti-atrocities law is not made out.
(2) A High Court, in “exceptional cases”, could quash cases to prevent the misuse of the anti-atrocities law.
Sources
The Hindu