Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Set to Dismiss Challenge to 2018 SC/ST Act Amendments
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
The Supreme Court of India will hear a public-interest litigation on Tuesday, 22 September 2026. Petitioners Brijbhushan Saini and 18 others seek to overturn the 2018 amendment to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The three-judge bench—Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana—is expected to decline the petition, preserving the amendment’s constitutional validity.
Background & Context
- 2018 amendment – Inserted Section 18A, removing the requirement for a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR, eliminating prior approval for arrest, and reinstating a statutory bar on anticipatory bail.
- Mahajan judgment (2018) – Required safeguards such as preliminary inquiries and arrest approval, and allowed anticipatory bail where no prima facie case existed.
- 2020 upholding – A three-judge bench affirmed the amendment’s validity in *Prithvi Raj Chauhan v Union of India* and clarified that the anticipatory-bail bar does not apply when the complaint lacks a prima facie case.
Data & Statistics
Petitioners note the INR 493 crore compensation pool under the Act and argue it encourages frivolous FIRs. They also point to a low conviction rate in cases filed under the Act, though no precise figure is given.
Official Statements & Responses
The bench observed that “sufficient safeguards already exist” to prevent misuse, citing the 2020 judgment’s protective provisions. It emphasized that courts can examine, case-by-case, whether a prima facie case is established before proceeding and referred to general criminal-procedure safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Criticism & Opposition
Petitioner counsel Vishnu Shankar Jain (also listed as Hari Shankar Jain in other filings) contended that Section 18A creates “reverse discrimination” against non-SC/ST persons and is “more draconian.” He argued that the statutory bar on anticipatory bail and the removal of preliminary inquiries could lead to arbitrary arrests and false complaints, and questioned the legality of the INR 493 crore compensation scheme.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Section 35 BNSS will also be a relevant consideration whenever an arrest is effected under the special law” — Arnesh Kumar
- “Courts have the right to examine at least whether a prima facie case is made out” — Justice Bagchi
What’s Next
After the hearing on 22 September 2026, the Supreme Court is expected to issue an order dismissing the PIL, leaving Section 18A and the 2018 amendment in force. Individual allegations of misuse may still be addressed through separate judicial review in specific cases.
