The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to revisit key provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, observing that the constitutional validity of the amended provisions had already been settled by the court in 2020. The petition had raised concerns over FIR registration, arrest procedures, restrictions on anticipatory bail and early compensation to complainants.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a fresh challenge to provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, relying on its earlier ruling that had upheld the constitutional validity of amendments to the legislation.
A bench led by Justice Joymalya Bagchi considered a petition filed by Brijbhushan Saini, who was represented by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain. The plea questioned several aspects of the law, particularly provisions dealing with the registration of FIRs, arrest of accused persons, anticipatory bail and compensation to complainants.
Jain submitted that the existing framework did not require a preliminary inquiry before an FIR could be registered in cases under the Act. He also questioned provisions permitting arrest without prior approval, arguing that the absence of such safeguards could potentially lead to misuse of the legislation.
The lawyer further raised objections to Section 18 of the Act, which places restrictions on the availability of anticipatory bail in cases registered under the SC/ST Act. The petitioner's argument was that accused persons could face arrest and other coercive measures even in cases where allegations were subsequently found to be questionable.
The bench, however, declined to reopen the constitutional questions surrounding the amended provisions. The court pointed to its 2020 judgment, in which it had upheld the amendments and dealt with safeguards and procedural issues concerning arrests and preliminary inquiries.
The hearing also saw arguments over the compensation mechanism under the legislation. Jain referred to information placed before Parliament and submitted that the government had allocated Rs 493 crore towards compensation for complainants. He questioned the provision under which financial assistance can be extended at an early stage of proceedings rather than being dependent solely on the final outcome of a case.
During the exchange, Justice Joymalya Bagchi interrupted the submissions and termed the argument concerning compensation as "cruel."
The latest proceedings therefore did not result in any alteration of the existing legal framework. By relying on the Supreme Court's earlier ruling, the bench effectively declined the request to reconsider the validity of provisions that govern FIR registration, arrest, bail and compensation under the SC/ST Act.
The case also brings back into focus the continuing legal debate surrounding the balance between protecting members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from atrocities and ensuring procedural safeguards for persons accused under the law. The Supreme Court's refusal to reopen the issue leaves the framework upheld in 2020 intact.
Leave Your Comment