The Supreme Court today rejected a PIL challenging the 2018 amendment to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which restored the bar on anticipatory bail and dispensed with preliminary enquiry before FIR and prior approval for arrest of an accused.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana dismissed the petition filed by Brijbhushan Saini, noting that the 2018 amendment was already upheld by the Supreme Court in Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (February 10, 2020). The bench noted that sufficient safeguards have been laid down in the 2020 judgment.

The bench did not accept the petitioner's request to reconsider the 2020 judgment.

For context, in its 2018 decision in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court diluted the SC/ST Act by mandating preliminary inquiries and approval before arrest under the SC/ST Act, and also by holding that there was no absolute bar on grant of anticipatory bail. To restore the original stringent provisions, the Parliament amended the Act in 2018 and inserted Section 18A. Section 18A dispensed with the need for preliminary inquiry before FIR, prior approval for arrest, and reinstated the bar against anticipatory bail.

In today's hearing, Advocate Hari Shankar Jain, for petitioners, argued that the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the Act amounts to "reverse discrimination". He further highlighted that the conviction rates under the Act are low, and alleged that the provisions are prone to misuse. Relying on the speech of a Rajya Sabha MP, Jain also assailed an alleged distribution of Rs. 493 crores as compensation under the Act.

It was also his contention that the 2018 amendment could not have "validated" the original provisions, and it amounted to nullifying the Supreme Court's judgment, without curing the defects pointed out in the judgment. "Section 18A is more draconian" he claimed, referring to the case of Vishnu Tiwari, who allegedly spent 20 years in jail over a false SC/ST Act case.

Justice Bagchi responded to the submission saying, "The acts [against] an individual would not be good ground to revisit a law which has been upheld by a bench comprising [3 judges]. 3 judges have given stamp of approval to that law. Why within 5 years we will revisit it?". The CJI on his part said that a case of abuse of provisions can be taken care of through exercise of judicial powers. "It does not mean that the statute itself [is bad]", he commented.

Jain however replied that the 2020 decision required reconsideration. He beseeched the court to test the law and the 2020 decision from the prism of Articles 14 and 21. On this, Justice Bagchi said that Section 35 of the BNSS - which mandates prior notice before arrest in certain cases- will apply to SC/ST Act.

"Section 35 BNSS will also be a relevant consideration whenever an arrest is effected under the special law. Because of the way we have interpreted Section 41A in Arnesh Kumar case. There, we have said that this restriction will also apply to special statute. For that we need not declare Section 18A ultra vires. [We] read the two provisions analogously," Justice Bagchi said.

Quoting Article 21, Jain then questioned why anticipatory bail provision should not be applicable to an accused under the SC/ST Act. Justice Bagchi replied that it was the legislature's wisdom. "Why in an offense punishable with imprisonment upto 7 years, there are restrictions like Section 43D [UAPA], provisions of PMLA...these are relevant questions which unfortunately we cannot sit in the armchair of the legislator. The legislators' wisdom laid down it" the judge said.

When Jain argued that the amendment amounted to "reverse discrimination" and was "further creating a divide in the society", Justice Mohana noted that all apprehensions were taken care of in the 2020 decision. The judge underlined that despite Section 18A of SC/ST Act, FIR invoking the law can be quashed on a case-to-case basis.

Justice Bagchi also referred to a recent Supreme Court decision, where the bar under Section 18A was restricted, noting that a mere reference to SC/ST Act will not be a ground to rule out anticipatory bail. "Courts have the right to examine atleast whether prima facie case is made out", the judge said.

Later, when Jain contended that a distribution of Rs.493 crores compensation was against Rules, and that it was infact "inviting people to lodge FIRs", Justice Bagchi did not appreciate the submission. "That's cruel", the Judge said.. Ultimately, the bench dismissed the plea.

Case Title: Brijbhushan Saini and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case No.: WP(C) 1211/2026