SC/ST Atrocities Act and Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court Verdict in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India

The case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. deals with the constitutional challenge against the amendments to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioners contested the inclusion of Section 18A, which eliminated the requirement for a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR and barred anticipatory bail for accused persons.

The Supreme Court examined whether these provisions violated fundamental rights, particularly Article 21 of the Constitution, and if anticipatory bail could still be granted in exceptional cases. The petitioners argued that the law was being misused, while the respondents maintained that the amendments were necessary to prevent atrocities against SC/ST communities.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioners argued that Section 18A was introduced to nullify the decision in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra. They contended:

“There could not have been any curtailment of the right to obtain anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Prior scrutiny and proper investigation are necessary.”

They claimed that the provision was arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights, citing past instances where preventive measures were implemented to stop misuse of the Act.

Arguments by the Respondent

The Union of India argued that the amendments were necessary due to widespread atrocities against SC/ST communities. The respondents relied on data showing that:

“More than 47,000 cases were registered in 2016 under the Act of 1989. The number is alarming, and it cannot be said that it is due to the outcome of the misuse of the provisions of the Act.”

They asserted that protective discrimination was essential to uphold constitutional safeguards for marginalized communities.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Court examined whether anticipatory bail could still be granted in cases under the SC/ST Act. It noted:

“If the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by Section 18 and 18A(2) shall not apply.”

The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail could be granted in exceptional cases where it was evident that no prima facie case was made out.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 18A but clarified that anticipatory bail was not completely barred if a case lacked merit. This ruling strikes a balance between protecting SC/ST communities and preventing misuse of the law.

Petitioner Name: Prathvi Raj Chauhan.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Vineet Saran, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 10-02-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-02-2020.pdf