Legality of SC and ST amendment act 2018 with relevance to Kashinath Mahajan case

Author: Vikma.v

College: Dr.Ambedkar law university (school of excellence in law)Chennai


This research paper aims at highlighting the legality of SC and ST amendment act 2018 with relevance to Kashinath Mahajan case. The introductory part gives a side glance of what is SC and ST amendment act 2018 and How the SC and ST amendment act 2018 with relevance to Kashinath Mahajan case. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities’ ) Amendment Bill 2018 was passed by the parliament on 9th August 2018. The next part defines the supreme court upholds constitutional validity of SC and ST amendment act 2018. In this research paper we will try to examine the three provisions of the amendment- anticipatory bail, preliminary inquiry and approval.


Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act 1989, additionally called SC ST Act, as can be perceived by the name itself, is an a demonstration to forestall abominations against individuals having a place with Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The demonstration likewise presents Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts to run preliminaries of such offenses that are made against SC, ST individuals.

In a recent development, the Supreme Court has maintained the sacred legitimacy of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act of 2018 on February 10, 2020. This article will give you significant insights regarding the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 (SC/ST Atrocity Law.)

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2018 was passed by the Parliament on ninth August 2018.

Important feature of SC and ST amendment act 2018:

· Section 18 An of SC ST Act – It invalidates the direct of a fundamental enquiry before enrollment of a FIR, or to look for endorsement of any authority preceding capture of a charged.

· Individual who has been blamed for abominations against SC ST individuals will be rejected from the arrangement of expectant bail.

· The SC ST act gives the Investigation Officer (IO) autonomy to capture the blamed individual or individuals with no endorsement from any power.(1)

SC and ST act 2018 and supreme court judgement:

A petition was filed against SC ST Amendment Act 2018 demanding to strike down the said act as the petitioners claimed the act was against Article 14, 19 & 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Article 14:

Declares that “ States shall not deny to any person right to equality before law or the equal protection of laws with in the TERRITORY OF INDIA.”

Article 19:

The Indian constitution read- all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Article 21:

Article 21 of the Indian constitution says that, " No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law".

Supreme Court Judgments:

1.March 2018 – A two-judge bench decided that no automatic arrest can be done by the IO and it also continued the provision of anticipatory bail for the accused.

2.September 2019 – SC three-judge bench restored the provision of automatic arrest

3.February 2020 – The following judgments came:

· Nullified the effect of March 18 judgement and SC upheld the validity of the SC ST Act.

· Pre-arrest bail should be granted only in extraordinary situations where a denial of bail would mean miscarriage of justice.

· Provision of anticipatory bail cannot be accessed by the accused.

· IO can arrest accused without any approval from senior police officials.

· The FIR filed, can be quashed by the court.

Supreme court upholds the constitutional validity of SC and ST amendment act 2018:

The supreme court on Monday maintained the protected legitimacy of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes ( prevention of atrocities) amendment act of 2018 authorized to invalidate the impacts of the march 20, 2018 judgement of the court which had weakened the arrangements of the Act.

The Supreme Court today upheld the constitutional validity of the SC/ST Amendment Act, 2018 which rules out anticipatory bail in case of atrocities against SC/STs. Hearing a bench of PILs, the Apex Court said, anticipatory bail can only be granted in cases where prima facie case is not made out. A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said, a preliminary inquiry is not essential before lodging an FIR under the act nor is the approval of senior police officials.

The SC/ST Amendment Act 2018 was brought to invalidate the impact of a Supreme Court administering which had weakened the arrangements of the rigid Act. Prior, on the twentieth of March, 2018, observing wild abuse of the tough SC/ST Act, the top court precluded the quick capture on any objection recorded under the law. Savage fights had occurred the nation over after the summit court's decision wherein a few people lost their lives and many were harmed.(2)

Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. UOI (3)

Judges: Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai, M.R Shah, Arun Mishra

Case number: WP (C) 1015/ 2018

Parties involved:

Petitioner: Priya Sharma; Prathvi Raj Chauhan; India for Rule of law Foundation; Sandeep Lamba.

Respondent: Attorney General K. Venugopal

Case Description: The Supreme Court maintained the established legitimacy of Parliament's 2018 Amendment to the Prevention of Atrocities Act.


The applicants have tested the protected legitimacy of the Section 18A of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, acquainted by the 2018 Amendment with the Act. The Court will survey whether Section 18A disregards the basic rights to correspondence, life and freedom ensured by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

In 2018, Parliament acquainted Section 18A with topple shields presented by the Supreme Court in its Kashinath Mahajan judgment. Segment 18A fixes each of the three of the accompanying protections presented by the judgment:

1.Direct a starter request before the enlistment of a First Information Report (FIR).

2.Examination official must get further endorsement preceding effectuating a capture.

3.Award expectant bail to any blamed, 'despite any judgment or request or bearing of any Court'.

The shields from the Kashinath Mahajan judgment were expected to keep individuals from mishandling the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. They were a reaction to the purportedly rising number of fraudulent allegations being documented utilizing the Act. The shields intended to guarantee that individuals blamed under the Prevention for Atrocities Act are not assumed blameworthy and denied fair treatment.

2018 Amendment upheld:

On 1 October 2019, the Court recalled its directions in Kashinath Mahajan, in effect endorsing the 2018 Amendment and rejecting the prayers in the writ petitions. In a brief hearing on 3 October 2019, the Court reserved the judgment in the writ petitions, noting that the issues raised in them have been answered in the judgment in the review petition.

On 10 February 2020, the Court formally upheld the constitutionality of the 2018 Amendment. Justice Arun Mishra wrote the majority on behalf of himself and Justice Vineet Saran. Justice S.R. Bhat wrote a concurring opinion.

Echoing the review of Kashinath Mahajan case: (4)

The two assessments depended vigorously on the Court's judgment in the survey petitions testing Kashinath Mahajan, conveyed in October 2019. In actuality, the Kashinath Mahajan judgment had as of now maintained the 2018 Amendment. The judgment reviewed the bearings gave in Kashinath Mahajan on three grounds:

1.The bearings were given under Court's phenomenal forces under Article 142, which is to be practiced just when there is an administrative vacuum or absence of lucidity in the current arrangements of an enactment. The Court in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan was not stood up to with both of these situations.

2.Headings presented new chains on enrollment of FIRs and making captures under the Act. Such chains were much more cumbersome than those found under the overall law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This added up to the inconsistent therapy of the individuals from the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe people group.

3.The vast majority of the bearings were unfeasible.

4.As Parliament's 2018 Amendment was intended to fix Kashinath Mahajan, the Court by switching Kashinath Mahajan, was essentially maintaining the 2018 Amendment. (5)


After a deep analysis of all the three parts of the amendment , that is preliminary inquiry, approval and anticipatory bail, it is concluded that these provisions should be restored as per the judgements.Likewise, one thing which ought to be remembered is that these procedural shields don't meddle with the privileges of the SC/ST individuals nor are they in any capacity an endeavor to weaken the arrangements of the Act; the protections just put a keep an eye on the optional intensity of the police.




(3)Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. UOI On 20- Mar- 2018

(4)Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The state of Maharashtra


85 views0 comments