FACTS OF THE CASE
Prithviraj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) was the case that raised questions about the constitutionality of Section 18-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as introduced through the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018. The said amendment was designed to restore the original intent behind the SC/ST Act that had been thought to be watered down by the Supreme Court judgment in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, 2018. In the Subhash Kashinath case, the Supreme Court, citing the potential for misuse of the Act, laid down procedural safeguards for the accused, including mandatory preliminary inquiries before registering an FIR and allowing anticipatory bail in specific circumstances under the SC/ST Act. This judgment was seen as an undermining of the stringent protections provided to Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and widespread protests erupted by the marginalized communities and social justice advocates. Traditionally, the SC/ST Act was enacted as a robust mechanism to combat atrocities, systemic oppression, and discrimination faced by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, ensuring swift justice for the victims of such heinous crimes. However, the Subhash Kashinath judgment has been criticized for not upholding the above purpose because it introduced a delay in the filing of complaints and allowed anticipatory bail that might deter victims from seeking redress out of fear of revenge. To address these concerns, the legislature enacted Section 18-A through the 2018 amendment, which clearly stated that no preliminary inquiry would be required for the registration of an FIR under the SC/ST Act and that anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) would not be available for offenses under the Act. These provisions were made to re-establish the strict approach that was originally envisioned by the SC/ST Act. The amendment, however, was legally challenged as violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that the provisions were arbitrary, excessive, and discriminatory, as they denied procedural fairness and safeguards guaranteed under criminal jurisprudence to accused persons. This paved the way for the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prithviraj Chauhan, where the rights of the accused had to be brought in balance by the court considering the very legislative intent of protecting those most vulnerable sections of society from caste-based violence and discrimination.
ISSUES RAISED
The following issues were raised before the Supreme Court:
- Whether Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act is violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the SC/ST Act nullifies the safeguards provided to the accused by the Supreme Court in the Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case.
- Whether the complete exclusion of anticipatory bail for offenses under the SC/ST Act is constitutional.
- Whether the provision for no preliminary inquiry infringes upon the procedural fairness guaranteed under Article 21.
CONTENTIONS
Arguments by the Petitioners
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act, arguing that it infringed upon fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. They contended that the denial of procedural safeguards to the accused, such as preliminary inquiries before the registration of an FIR and the blanket exclusion of anticipatory bail, rendered the law arbitrary and discriminatory. This, they argued, violated the principles of equality before the law and the right to life and personal liberty. Furthermore, the petitioners raised concerns about the misuse of the SC/ST Act, asserting that the amended provisions made it susceptible to frivolous complaints and false accusations. According to them, these issues created an imbalance in the criminal justice system, leading to the harassment of innocent individuals. They highlighted that the SC/ST Act, while enacted with noble intent, had in certain cases been weaponized for personal vendettas or to settle scores, thereby undermining its original purpose. The petitioners also emphasized the principle of presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, and argued that the denial of anticipatory bail contravened this principle by treating the accused as guilty before the charges were even substantiated. This, they claimed, tilted the scales of justice unfairly against the accused, creating a law that was oppressive rather than protective.
Arguments of the Respondent (Union of India)
The respondents, being the Union of India, defended the validity of Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act, arguing that the amendment was necessary to restore the legislative intent and ensure justice for the most vulnerable sections of society. They argued that the Subhash Kashinath Mahajan judgment had diluted the very essence of the SC/ST Act, as a legislation intended to deal with systemic oppressions, atrocities, and social injustices of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Respondents also brought into focus the point that the exclusion of anticipatory bail under the Act had been justified given the heinousness of offenses like caste-based violence, exploitation, and discrimination for which the Act was enacted. The submission was that permitting anticipatory bail in such cases would embolden the accused and deter the complainants from complaining which would be a negation of legislative intent. It also highlighted the checks available before it and hinted that even with them in place, it directed towards Section 41 of the CrPC where there is an arrest policy available, and under that provision, an arrest is only made if the arresting authority has an absolute reason. It claimed that this safeguard will alone suffice for obviating misuse. Respondents wanted to uphold the amendment so that the commitment of the state toward the protection of marginalized communities was reaffirmed and the SC/ST Act remained a robust tool for delivering justice to those who have faced systemic discrimination and violence throughout history.
RATIONALE
No Blanket Denial of Anticipatory Bail
It is while keeping Section 18-A valid to generally bar anticipatory bail in SC/ST Act cases, that the court made an important clarification. Holding that even “extraordinary circumstances” cannot result in a case prima facie not being made against the accused where anticipatory bail can be allowed. This subtle interpretation ensured that, otherwise the very stringent prohibition of anticipatory bail created an exception in such a manner that those falsely framed under the Act are not denied their fundamental right to personal liberty. The court opined that this safety valve would be resorted to only in very exceptional cases and only when allegations are patently frivolous or malafide. By conferring this partial immunity, the court was trying to nullify the misappropriation of the Act without undermining its strong deterrent effect on caste atrocities.
Objectives behind the SC/ST Act
The court emphasized that the SC/ST Act plays a vital role in tackling historical and systemic exclusion faced by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It was pointed out that the Act is not merely punitive but also remedial, and it was intended to protect the dignity, rights, and security of the oppressed communities that have been subjected to centuries of oppression and exploitation. The court further noted that the Act is an important instrument for correcting social evils, particularly in rural areas where caste hierarchies and prejudices remain deep-rooted. This led to the reintroduction of other hard-line clauses of the Act, like in most cases restricting anticipatory bail, and vindicated the proposition that the state is serious in taking robust legal safeguards for such weaker sections so that justice is neither delayed nor denied to the victims of caste atrocities.
Misuse of the SC/ST Act
Although it acknowledged the importance of the SC/ST Act for protecting vulnerable groups, it also recognized concerns raised regarding the possible misuse of this act. It further noted that though false complaints or frivolous cases do not form the majority, they could destroy the credibility and efficacy of the Act. Therefore, the court emphasized that investigations must be fair and unbiased. It mentioned existing procedural safeguards, such as CrPC under general criminal law, as Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Here, the guidelines for arrest were referred to ensure arrests were not arbitral and did not occur without adequate justification. The court further emphasized that law enforcement agencies must act responsibly and adhere to these safeguards so that the SC/ST Act is not misused while the genuine victims are not discouraged from seeking justice.
Harmonization with Article 21
Judging was in harmony with the commitment of the Supreme Court to harmonize the objectives of the SC/ST Act and the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including Article 21, which embodies the right to life and liberty. The Court was alive to the need to balance the interest of protecting the victims of atrocities on account of caste with that of the respondent accused to enjoy a fair trial with the process of law. It reiterated that procedural fairness is an integral part of the justice system and must be upheld even in cases involving heinous crimes. Allowing anticipatory bail in exceptional cases, the court had to stress fair investigations in the interest of upholding the fact that the SC/ST Act would remain a potent weapon against social injustice without trampling constitutional rights. This reflects how the judiciary acts to protect not only social justice but also the rule of law in a different and stratified society like India.
DEFECTS OF LAW
Despite the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Prithviraj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), which upheld the constitutionality of Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act, there are still some defects in the law and its application. The most important one is the vagueness of the provision for anticipatory bail. While the court permitted anticipatory bail in “exceptional cases,” however, there was no clear guideline regarding what constitutes such cases and thereby left matters in a discretionary space in the hands of the judiciary which may lead to inconsistent judgments of different courts. The second area that waits for regulation is that the SC/ST Act does not provide any apparatus or machinery to address false complaints, which again leads to and opens the doors for misuse of the law against the innocent. Overlap between the SC/ST Act and general criminal law provisions, particularly procedures for arrest and investigation, adds to the problem by causing confusion and operational challenges to law enforcement agencies. As SC has rightly put heavy emphasis on the existing safeguards of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to ensure that the trial process was not prejudiced, no value was given to the practical hardship of the accused to prove that complaints lodged against them were frivolous or malicious. This gives rise to a need for reform in legislation as well as in procedure so that it becomes worthwhile for the SC/ST Act without compromising the principles of fairness and justice.
INFERENCE
The Prithviraj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) judgment is a landmark decision that demonstrates the Supreme Court’s commitment to balancing social justice with procedural fairness in India. The SC/ST Act, enacted to address historical injustices and systemic discrimination against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, was amended in 2018 to address concerns about procedural safeguards like anticipatory bail and preliminary inquiry. The court upheld Section 18-A, reinforcing the legislative intent to ensure expeditious justice for victims of caste-based atrocities. The court also acknowledged the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. By allowing anticipatory bail in “exceptional cases,” the court attempted to strike a balance between protecting victims and safeguarding procedural fairness. However, the lack of clarity on what constitutes “exceptional circumstances” leaves room for judicial subjectivity and inconsistency, creating uncertainty and potential bias in the application of the law. The judgment has broader implications for social justice and equality in India. It reaffirms the principle that affirmative action and protective legislation are essential for addressing structural inequalities and historical injustices. The SC/ST Act serves as a reminder that the state has a constitutional obligation to ensure substantive equality for marginalized groups, even if it requires imposing reasonable restrictions on individual rights. However, the effectiveness of such legislation depends on its implementation. The court’s acknowledgment of misuse concerns suggests that protective laws should not be applied mechanically but with due regard to fairness and reasonableness. This calls for systemic reforms, including better training for law enforcement agencies, robust mechanisms for monitoring the misuse of laws, and public awareness campaigns to educate citizens about the objectives of the SC/ST Act. The judgment sets an important precedent for future cases involving conflicts between social justice legislation and individual rights. In future cases, the judiciary will need to address the ambiguities and practical challenges left unresolved in Prithviraj Chauhan. Clear guidelines on the application of anticipatory bail and safeguards against misuse of the SC/ST Act are necessary to ensure consistency and fairness in the justice system.
Daksh Bhargava
Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies – Technical Campus
(Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University)