The Supreme Court today upheld the constitutionality of the SC/ST Amendment Act passed in 2019 (Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India)..Parliament had brought in an amendment to the Scheduled Cates and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [SC/ST Act] last year to nullify the effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment of March 2018 (Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra). This judgment had effectively diluted provisions of the Act. The amendment was later assailed before the Supreme Court..The three-Judge Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, and Ravindra Bhat had reserved its verdict in the matter on October 3 last year, while hinting that the amendment was likely to be upheld..Challenge to SC/ST Act amendment: Supreme Court says it will not dilute any provisions, reserves judgment.The two main points of contention pertained to the provision of anticipatory bail and the provision of preliminary enquiry for complaints under the SC/ST Act..The Court had observed that the Constitution Bench had earlier made it clear that anticipatory bail can be granted in cases where a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is not made out. This law will stand in light of the judgment in the review petition delivered on September 30, the Court had remarked..While reserving its judgment in the challenge to the SC/ST Act amendment, the Court had also said that it would also clarify on the point of the power of the police to hold preliminary inquiry before taking action on complaints..Justice Mishra had then hinted that no provisions of the SC/ST Act will be diluted, and that the law as it stood prior to the March 2018 judgment will stand. He had also said that the order in the case would be "short one"..The decision in the matter was reserved just two days after the Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had allowed the review petitions filed by the Centre against the March 2018 judgment of Justice AK Goel and Justice UU Lalit..The Court, while allowing the review petitions, had observed that the directions issued by the Division Bench were not called for, and were not within the parameters of Article 142 of the Constitution of India. .In the review judgment, directions 3, 4, and 5 as laid down in the 2018 judgment stood set aside. The amendment to the Act had already nullified the effect of directions 3 and 4, which dealt with prior sanction for arrest and preliminary enquiry respectively. Direction 5 provided for disciplinary action in case directions 3 and 4 were not followed..Breaking: Supreme Court allows Review Petition filed by Centre against judgment that diluted provisions of SC/ST Act.[Read the judgment]
The Supreme Court today upheld the constitutionality of the SC/ST Amendment Act passed in 2019 (Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India)..Parliament had brought in an amendment to the Scheduled Cates and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [SC/ST Act] last year to nullify the effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment of March 2018 (Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra). This judgment had effectively diluted provisions of the Act. The amendment was later assailed before the Supreme Court..The three-Judge Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, and Ravindra Bhat had reserved its verdict in the matter on October 3 last year, while hinting that the amendment was likely to be upheld..Challenge to SC/ST Act amendment: Supreme Court says it will not dilute any provisions, reserves judgment.The two main points of contention pertained to the provision of anticipatory bail and the provision of preliminary enquiry for complaints under the SC/ST Act..The Court had observed that the Constitution Bench had earlier made it clear that anticipatory bail can be granted in cases where a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is not made out. This law will stand in light of the judgment in the review petition delivered on September 30, the Court had remarked..While reserving its judgment in the challenge to the SC/ST Act amendment, the Court had also said that it would also clarify on the point of the power of the police to hold preliminary inquiry before taking action on complaints..Justice Mishra had then hinted that no provisions of the SC/ST Act will be diluted, and that the law as it stood prior to the March 2018 judgment will stand. He had also said that the order in the case would be "short one"..The decision in the matter was reserved just two days after the Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had allowed the review petitions filed by the Centre against the March 2018 judgment of Justice AK Goel and Justice UU Lalit..The Court, while allowing the review petitions, had observed that the directions issued by the Division Bench were not called for, and were not within the parameters of Article 142 of the Constitution of India. .In the review judgment, directions 3, 4, and 5 as laid down in the 2018 judgment stood set aside. The amendment to the Act had already nullified the effect of directions 3 and 4, which dealt with prior sanction for arrest and preliminary enquiry respectively. Direction 5 provided for disciplinary action in case directions 3 and 4 were not followed..Breaking: Supreme Court allows Review Petition filed by Centre against judgment that diluted provisions of SC/ST Act.[Read the judgment]
