Supreme Court upheld the 2018 SC&ST Amendment Act's validity

Supreme Court upheld the 2018 SC&ST Amendment Act's validity

Case Title: Prithvi Raj Chauhan V. Union of India & Ors

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act of 2018 was passed to undo the consequences of the Supreme Court's March 20, 2018, decision, which had weakened the Act's prohibitions. In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the Act's constitutional legitimacy.

Judgement on the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act of 2018 had been reserved by a bench made up of Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, and Ravindra Bhat.

Notably, while permitting the Centre's appeal, the bench presided over by Justice Arun Mishra had recalled the restrictions imposed by the two judges bench as per the March 20, 2018 verdict.

In their petitions, attorneys Prithviraj Chauhan, Priya Sharma, and a few others argued that the 2018 Amendment to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act of 1989) was unconstitutional because it violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 as well as the fundamental principles of the constitution, and should therefore be overturned.

By means of the Amendment, a new section 18A of the Act of 1989 has been added, and this provision eliminates the court's orders from 2018 that an arrest must first be authorised and a preliminary investigation must be conducted. Additionally, it reinstates the complete prohibition against the issuance of anticipatory bail in the case of an Act violation.

The petitioners argue that the deletion of the provision for anticipatory bail is arbitrary and unfair and that the revisions were imposed under "political pressure."

The petitioners argued that the power of arrest should only be used after complying with the safeguards of scrutiny, credible information, and just and reasonable procedure under Sections 41 and 41A of the Cr.P.C. They further argued that being born into an upper caste cannot be a basis for a presumption of guilt so as to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before an independent forum.