Supreme Court Rejects Constitutional Challenge to 2018 SC/ST Act Amendments

Supreme Court Upholds 2018 SC/ST Act Amendments, Clarifies Anticipatory Bail Limits

The Supreme Court has rejected a constitutional challenge to the 2018 amendments of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, upholding the removal of preliminary inquiry and prior approval requirements that had previously acted as procedural safeguards before the filing of cases. A bench comprising Chief Justice Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana heard the case of Brijbhushan Saini and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. on September 22, 2026, and refused to reconsider an earlier 2020 judgment that had validated these amendments.

The decision reinforces the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act while introducing a critical clarification on anticipatory bail in SC/ST Act cases that protects accused persons from arbitrary detention where no prima facie case exists. The ruling balances the legislative intent to protect vulnerable communities against atrocities with constitutional safeguards against process abuse, a tension that has defined judicial interpretation of the Act since its amendment.

The 2018 Amendment and Its Effect

When Parliament amended the SC/ST Act in 2018, it removed two significant procedural requirements that had governed case registration and investigation. The preliminary inquiry—a mandatory investigation stage before an FIR could be registered—and the requirement for prior approval from a senior police officer before initiating proceedings were both eliminated. These provisions had been introduced through a 2016 amendment following concerns from accused persons and civil liberties groups that the Act was being misused to file false complaints.

The removal of these safeguards restored the Act to its original, more stringent form. Critics argued that this made it easier to register cases against accused persons without sufficient initial scrutiny, potentially exposing innocent individuals to harassment through the criminal process itself. Petitioners in the constitutional challenge contended that the removal violated fundamental rights and due process principles enshrined in the Constitution.

The bench's rejection of this challenge confirms that the court sees no constitutional infirmity in the 2018 amendments. By refusing to reconsider the 2020 judgment, the court has effectively settled the question at the highest level: the amendments stand as valid law, and the preliminary inquiry and prior approval requirements do not apply to cases under the SC/ST Act.

Anticipatory Bail and Prima Facie Case Requirement

While upholding the amendments, the Supreme Court has now introduced an important qualification regarding bail in Supreme Court jurisprudence on the SC/ST Act. Sections 18 and 18A of the Act specifically exclude the application of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which governs anticipatory bail. This exclusion means that persons accused under the SC/ST Act cannot ordinarily seek bail in advance of arrest, a provision designed to ensure that accused persons do not evade justice in atrocity cases.

However, the bench clarified that this bar on anticipatory bail does not operate universally. Where the complaint itself does not contain elements that constitute a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act, the exclusion will not apply. In other words, if the allegations made in the complaint do not, on their face, disclose any offence under the Act, an accused person may still seek anticipatory bail despite the statutory bar. This distinction is crucial to the latest judgement of Supreme Court on bail in 2025, as it prevents the bar from functioning as an absolute prohibition even where the underlying allegations are legally insufficient.

The practical effect of this clarification is significant. A person accused of conduct that might ordinarily attract criminal charges but does not fall within the specific definitions of atrocity under the SC/ST Act can now approach the courts for anticipatory bail protection, even if the complaint has been filed under the Act. Conversely, where the complaint clearly alleges facts that constitute an atrocity as defined by the Act, the statutory bar on anticipatory bail remains intact and the court cannot grant bail in advance of arrest.

This interpretation aligns with constitutional principles that protect accused persons from arbitrary detention while respecting Parliament's legislative judgment about the seriousness of atrocity offences. The Supreme Court has thus attempted to reconcile the stringent provisions of the Act with the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Constitutional Courts' Power to Intervene

The bench also recognised that constitutional courts retain the inherent power to intervene in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of process. This principle is essential to the functioning of criminal law in a constitutional democracy. Even where a statute appears to impose a blanket restriction—such as the bar on anticipatory bail—courts can step in if the restriction is being deployed in a manner that amounts to manifest abuse or produces an obviously unjust result.

This recognition does not undermine the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act. Rather, it preserves a judicial safety valve. If a complaint is filed with the sole purpose of harassing an accused person, or if the allegations are so clearly frivolous that no reasonable person could regard them as constituting an atrocity, the court retains the power to intervene. Courts will increasingly emphasise this principle across multiple statutes that restrict bail.

The practical application of this principle will depend on the facts of each case. Courts will need to examine whether the complaint discloses a genuine allegation of atrocity or whether it is a colourable exercise of the power to file a complaint under the Act. The bench's recognition of this power provides some assurance to accused persons that they are not entirely without remedy even where the statutory bar on anticipatory bail applies.

Case Registration and Investigation

With the removal of preliminary inquiry and prior approval requirements now confirmed as constitutional, the pathway to case registration under the SC/ST Act is straightforward. A police officer can register an FIR based on a complaint alleging an atrocity without conducting a preliminary investigation or seeking approval from a senior officer. This streamlines the process and reduces delays, which the legislature intended to benefit victims of atrocities who might otherwise face obstruction in registering cases.

However, this streamlined process must now be read in conjunction with the court's clarification on anticipatory bail. An accused person who is arrested following an FIR registered without preliminary inquiry or prior approval can still approach the court for bail, including anticipatory bail, if the complaint does not disclose a prima facie case under the Act. This provides a check on potential misuse of the streamlined registration process.

Investigating officers will need to be mindful that while they have greater freedom to register cases, the court retains the power to examine whether the allegations constitute an atrocity as defined by the Act. A complaint that alleges conduct falling outside the statutory definition of atrocity will not support the bar on anticipatory bail, even if it is filed under the Act.