SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2018

Also called: Section 18A · Topic: Safeguards for Vulnerable Sections: SCs, STs, OBCs, Minorities, Women and Children · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2018 is an ordinary law of Parliament. It added Section 18A to the SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989. It cancelled the safeguards the Supreme Court had created in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (2018):

• An FIR no longer needs a preliminary enquiry first.
• Arrest no longer needs prior approval.
• Anticipatory bail (bail given before arrest) is again barred.

The Supreme Court upheld it in Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) [3]. Exams often test it as a clear case of Parliament changing the law to undo a court ruling.

Explanation

Background: what the 1989 Act already said

• The SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989 punishes atrocities. These are serious crimes against Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) committed because of their caste or tribe.
• Section 18 said anticipatory bail under s.438 of the CrPC is not available for offences under this Act.

• Anticipatory bail means a person gets bail before they are arrested.

• The 1989 Act also set up Special Courts and Special Public Prosecutors. These are government lawyers who handle only these cases.

What the Mahajan judgment changed (20 March 2018)

• The Supreme Court worried that people were filing false complaints under the Act. It said:
• anticipatory bail is not completely barred;
• a preliminary enquiry is needed before an FIR is registered. This is a check of the complaint by a DSP (Deputy Superintendent of Police);

• prior approval is needed before arrest. For ordinary persons, the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) must approve [1].

• Dalit groups felt the Act had been weakened. They held a nationwide Bharat bandh on 2 April 2018.

What Section 18A says [2]

• (a) No preliminary enquiry is needed before an FIR is registered against an accused person.
• (b) No approval is needed to arrest. The investigating officer can arrest the accused if arrest is necessary.
• (c) No other procedure applies. Only the procedure in this Act or the CrPC applies.
• (d) s.438 CrPC (anticipatory bail) does not apply. This holds "notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court". In other words, no court ruling can override this bar.

Limits: the safety valve

• In Prithvi Raj Chauhan (2020), the Court upheld s.18A but kept one narrow exception [3].
• A court can give anticipatory bail where there is no prima facie case.

• "No prima facie case" means the complaint does not show an offence even at first sight.

• So the bar is strong, but it is not total. It protects a person against a complaint that shows no offence on its face.

In the Constitution and practice

• Constitutional base:
• Art. 17 abolishes untouchability in any form. It binds private persons, not just the State.
• Art. 46 is a Directive Principle. It tells the State to protect SCs and STs from social injustice and exploitation.

• Art. 21 (life with dignity) supports the victim's side. Mahajan used Art. 21 for the accused's liberty.

• Legal base: it is an amendment to the SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989, made by Parliament through an ordinary law. It is not a constitutional amendment.

• How it was passed [1]: 1. The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 3 August 2018. 2. The Lok Sabha passed it on 6 August 2018. 3. The Rajya Sabha passed it on 9 August 2018.

• What the courts did next:

• Union of India v. State of Maharashtra (1 October 2019): a three-judge Bench heard a review and recalled (withdrew) the Mahajan directions.

• Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (10 February 2020): the Court upheld s.18A. Anticipatory bail is possible only where there is no prima facie case [3].

• Full sequence: Mahajan (20 March 2018) → Bharat bandh (2 April 2018) → Amendment Act (August 2018) [1] → review recall (1 October 2019) → Prithvi Raj Chauhan (10 February 2020) [3].

• In practice: NCRB's Crime in India reports show that crimes registered against SCs and STs keep rising. Conviction rates stay low and many cases remain pending. Stronger arrest powers alone have not closed this enforcement gap.

Don't confuse with

• Section 18 (1989): this was the original bar on anticipatory bail. Section 18A (2018) was added later. It re-confirmed that bar and also removed the preliminary enquiry and prior approval.
• The 2015 amendment (in force from 2016): it added new offences, such as tonsuring, garlanding with footwear and social or economic boycott. It also set up Exclusive Special Courts and a chapter on the rights of victims and witnesses. It did not deal with arrest or bail. That was the 2018 amendment.
• The Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955: it punishes discrimination, such as barring entry to temples or water sources, and it gives effect to Art. 17. The PoA Act and s.18A deal with violent atrocities and how the accused is arrested.
• The Mahajan review recall (2019): this is the Court withdrawing its own directions. Prithvi Raj Chauhan (2020): this is the Court upholding Parliament's s.18A.

Prelims Hooks

• s.18A(a): no preliminary enquiry before an FIR. s.18A(b): no approval before arrest. s.18A(d): s.438 CrPC does not apply [2].
• Mahajan (20 March 2018): it required a DSP-level preliminary enquiry and SSP approval before arresting ordinary persons [1]. s.18A overrode both.
• Passage of the 2018 Act: Lok Sabha on 6 August and Rajya Sabha on 9 August 2018 [1].
• Prithvi Raj Chauhan (10 February 2020): s.18A upheld. Anticipatory bail is allowed only where there is no prima facie case [3].
• Trap: the 2018 change was an ordinary Act amending the 1989 Act. It was not a constitutional amendment, and the Supreme Court did not strike it down.
• Trap: the Mahajan directions were recalled by a three-judge review Bench on 1 October 2019. Prithvi Raj Chauhan did not do this.

Mains Points

• Misuse versus protection:
• Mahajan gave weight to the risk of false complaints and the accused's liberty under Art. 21.
• Parliament's s.18A gave weight to the protection of vulnerable victims.

• Prithvi Raj Chauhan balanced the two. It upheld the bar but kept a narrow safety valve: anticipatory bail where there is no prima facie case [3].

• Parliament and the Court in conversation: Parliament did not defy the judgment. It changed the law the judgment rested on. The Court then accepted the change. This is a good example of how the legislature and the judiciary can settle a rights conflict without a constitutional crisis.

• The law on paper versus enforcement: easier FIRs and arrests mean little if conviction rates stay low and cases pile up. Reforms should include:
• more Exclusive Special Courts;
• real witness protection, so that witnesses do not turn hostile;
• holding police responsible for weak investigation;
• shielding victims from social pressure to settle.

Related concepts

• Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955
• SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989
• Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case
• Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act 2013

Read more

• Protective laws: untouchability, atrocities and manual scavenging