Section 18A of the PoA Act represents a legislative response to judicial dilution of protective law. Discuss the balance between victim protection and safeguards against misuse.

In Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (2018), the Supreme Court cited misuse of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. It allowed anticipatory bail and directed a DSP-level preliminary enquiry and prior approval before any arrest [1]. Parliament responded by inserting Section 18A, which applies "notwithstanding any judgment" of a court [2]. The question is whether this protects victims without exposing innocent people to harm.

Victim protection restored by Section 18A

• No preliminary enquiry before an FIR. This matches Lalita Kumari: an FIR is mandatory for a cognizable offence [1].
• No approval needed for arrest. The Court found that requiring approval from the SSP or the appointing authority had no basis in statute and would discourage SC/ST complainants [1].
• Anticipatory bail is barred (Section 438 CrPC). In Ram Krishna Balothia (1995), the Court accepted the fear that accused persons out on bail could terrorise victims and witnesses [1].
• Evidence: the 2014 Standing Committee recorded intimidation of victims and witnesses [3]. Conviction rates were only 34.1% (SC) and 28.1% (ST) in 2024 [4].

Safeguards against misuse

• Judicial carve-out: Prathvi Raj Chauhan (2020) upheld the amendment. It held that the bar does not apply where the complaint shows no prima facie case [1].
• Quashing under Section 482 CrPC remains available in exceptional cases [1].
• Legislative gap: the Committee accepted that false cases exist. It suggested a penalty for malicious complaints, modelled on Section 14 of the POSH Act, 2013 [3]. No such penalty has been enacted.
• Ambiguous data: an acquittal may reflect a false case. It may equally reflect poor investigation or a frightened witness [4].

Striking the balance

• Filter weak cases through quality investigation and timely chargesheets, not hurdles at the point of filing.
• Make the victim–witness protection in Chapter IVA work in practice [3].
• Add a narrow penalty for proven malicious complaints, without bringing back pre-FIR enquiries.

Read with the Court's prima facie test, Section 18A gives genuine victims easy access to justice and leaves courts able to stop frivolous complaints. Better policing and witness protection, rather than procedural barriers, would secure Article 17 and the Preamble's promise of fraternity, which Justice Bhat stressed [1].