Supreme Court dismisses challenge to SC/ST Act provisions

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a challenge to the constitutional validity of key provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A bench headed by CJI Surya Kant said sufficient safeguards were already laid down by a three-judge bench in the Prathviraj Chauhan case of 2020. The PIL, filed by 19 people led by Brijbhushan Saini, contested Sections 18 and 18A denying anticipatory bail. Instances of misuse can be examined separately but cannot cast doubt on the Act's validity, the bench said.

Written by AI from Hindustan Times — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 23 Sept 2026, 9:08 am IST

Source

Hindustan Times — India · read the original report ↗

#supreme court#sc st act#anticipatory bail#pil#judiciary

Desk check · compared with the source

What the desk checked (5)

Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a challenge to the constitutional validity of provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. — Attributed to a bench headed by CJI Surya Kant, with direct quotes cited in the source.
Safeguards were already laid down by a three-judge bench in the Prathviraj Chauhan case (2020). — Quoted directly from the bench; case name and year appear in source.
The PIL was filed by 19 people led by Brijbhushan Saini, who claimed to be victims of false prosecutions. — Figure and name appear in source; the claim of false prosecution is the petitioners' own assertion.
Sections 18 and 18A deny anticipatory bail and bar prior police enquiry before FIR registration. — Described in source and echoed in petitioners' counsel's arguments; presented as the legal position, not independently verified.
The August 2024 Shajan Skaria judgment held the Section 18 bar applies only where prima facie material exists. — Attributed to the bench's reference in the source; figure/date appears in source.

Written by AI from Hindustan Times — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

The Supreme Court's refusal to entertain a challenge to the SC/ST Act's stringent provisions is politically a significant relief for every party that courts Dalit and Adivasi voters. Given that an earlier attempt to dilute the law triggered nationwide protests and a parliamentary amendment, this issue has never stayed confined to the courtroom. The bench's formulation — that instances of misuse can be examined separately but cannot cast doubt on the Act's validity — offers something to both sides: reassurance that the law stands intact, and an acknowledgement that judicial remedies exist for alleged abuse.

The order is a clear win for Dalit and Adivasi organisations and their political representatives, who now have a ready message that the law has not been diluted.
The bench describing the plea as 'purportedly in public interest' narrows the political and legal space for similar future challenges.
At the same time, by citing safeguards from the Prathviraj Chauhan and Shajan Skaria rulings, the court has not entirely shut the door on those raising 'false case' grievances.
The debate is likely to shift from repeal to implementation and screening quality — echoed in the referenced remark that awareness reduced case numbers in Tamil Nadu.
For governments at the Centre and in the states this is a low-cost outcome: the judiciary carried the burden of defending the statute, sparing them a political price.

What to watch — Watch how parties deploy this outcome in campaign messaging, and whether individual misuse claims now migrate to high courts as case-by-case quashing petitions.

The story does not establish how widespread misuse actually is, nor does it verify the petitioners' claims of false prosecution, and it records no official party reaction.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 7 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — amended in 2015 and again in 2018 — contains stringent provisions, including Section 18 and Section 18A that bar anticipatory bail for the accused and dispense with any preliminary police inquiry before registering an FIR. A group of 19 petitioners, claiming to be victims of allegedly false prosecutions, filed a PIL challenging the constitutional validity of these provisions. On Tuesday, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant dismissed the plea, holding that safeguards laid down in the three-judge bench ruling in Prathviraj Chauhan (2020) were sufficient to prevent misuse.

Key facts

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a PIL challenging the constitutional validity of key provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The bench comprised CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.
The PIL was filed by 19 people led by Brijbhushan Saini, who claimed to be victims of allegedly false prosecutions under the Act.
The challenge targeted Sections 18 and 18A, which deny anticipatory bail and require no prior police enquiry before registering an FIR.
The court said sufficient safeguards were already laid down by a three-judge bench in the Prathviraj Chauhan case (2020).
Prathviraj Chauhan held that where a complaint does not make out a prima facie case, the bar under Sections 18 and 18A shall not apply.
The 1989 Act was amended in 2015 and again in 2018, per the petitioners' counsel Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain.
The bench cited the August 2024 Shajan Skaria judgment: the Section 18 bar on anticipatory bail applies only where prima facie material indicates commission of an offence.

Timeline

1989The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is enacted.
2015The Act is amended.
2018The Act is amended again, including provisions relating to Section 18A.
2020A three-judge Supreme Court bench in Prathviraj Chauhan lays down safeguards: the Sections 18/18A bar does not apply where no prima facie case is made out.
2023The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure; its Section 35 governs police power of arrest.
August 2024In Shajan Skaria, the Supreme Court holds the Section 18 anticipatory bail bar applies only where prima facie material shows an offence.
Tuesday (recent hearing)CJI Surya Kant-led bench declines to entertain the PIL, saying misuse instances cannot invalidate the Act.

Who has a stake

Supreme Court of India — Must balance protection of SC/ST communities against atrocities with safeguards against misuse of stringent arrest provisions.
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes — The Act's stringent provisions, including the anticipatory bail bar, are their principal legal protection against atrocities.
Petitioners (19 people led by Brijbhushan Saini) — Claim to be victims of allegedly false prosecutions; sought to strike down Sections 18 and 18A.
Police — Section 18A bars preliminary enquiry before FIR registration, limiting the discretion otherwise available under Section 35 BNSS.
Accused persons under the Act — Denied anticipatory bail, except where no prima facie case is made out, as per Prathviraj Chauhan and Shajan Skaria.

Why it matters

The ruling reaffirms that the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act's stringent arrest and bail provisions stand constitutionally valid, keeping intact a key protective law for Dalit and Adivasi communities. At the same time, it consolidates a judicially crafted middle path: the anticipatory bail bar applies only where a prima facie case exists, and constitutional courts can quash cases to prevent misuse. For aspirants, it illustrates how courts handle allegations of misuse of special laws without diluting their constitutional basis.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act enacted 1989; amended in 2015 and 2018.
Section 18 bars anticipatory bail; Section 18A dispenses with preliminary police enquiry before FIR under the Act.
Prathviraj Chauhan (2020): three-judge bench held the Sections 18/18A bar does not apply if no prima facie case is made out.
Shajan Skaria (August 2024): Section 18 bar applies only where prima facie material indicates an offence.
Bench dismissing the PIL: CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with police power to arrest on reasonable complaint or credible information; BNSS replaced the CrPC.

Mains framing

The challenge to Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 raises the classic tension in special protective legislation: stringent procedural provisions — no preliminary inquiry before FIR, no anticipatory bail — are designed to overcome historic under-enforcement and intimidation of Dalit and Adivasi complainants, but petitioners argue they enable false prosecutions and curtail the safeguards otherwise available under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023, which lets police assess whether a complaint discloses credible information. The Supreme Court's response, as reiterated by the CJI Surya Kant bench, is that instances of misuse are matters for case-by-case judicial scrutiny and cannot by themselves impugn constitutional validity. The judicially evolved safeguards are already substantial: under Prathviraj Chauhan (2020) the statutory bar does not operate where the complaint fails to disclose a prima facie case, constitutional courts may quash proceedings in exceptional cases under the criminal procedure code (now BNSS), and Shajan Skaria (August 2024) confines the Section 18 bar to cases with prima facie material. The way forward, on the source's own logic, lies in rigorous application of this prima facie filter and remedial use of quashing powers rather than in striking down the provisions.

Key terms

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Special law to prevent atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; amended in 2015 and 2018.
Section 18 / Section 18A: Provisions barring anticipatory bail for the accused and dispensing with any prior police enquiry before FIR registration under the Act.
Anticipatory bail: Pre-arrest bail sought by a person apprehending arrest; expressly barred for offences under the Act, subject to the prima facie test.
Prathviraj Chauhan case (2020): Three-judge Supreme Court ruling holding that the Sections 18/18A bar will not apply where no prima facie case is made out.
Shajan Skaria case (August 2024): Supreme Court judgment holding the Section 18 anticipatory bail bar applies only where prima facie material shows an offence was committed.
Section 35, BNSS 2023: Allows police to arrest on reasonable complaint, credible information or reasonable suspicion of a cognisable offence punishable up to seven years.

Practice questions

Critically examine the judiciary's attempt to balance the protective object of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with concerns of misuse of its non-bailable and anticipatory bail provisions.
"Instances of misuse of a law cannot be a ground to doubt its constitutional validity." Discuss this principle with reference to recent Supreme Court rulings on Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act.
How do the safeguards evolved in Prathviraj Chauhan (2020) and Shajan Skaria (2024) interact with police powers of arrest under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyMonsoon ends with 15% deficit; yield concerns across rain-fed areas →

← All stories