Case Summary


Date of Judgment: February 10, 2020

Judges: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Vineet Saran and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

Facts –

Here the petitioners have questioned the provisions inserted by carving out section 18A of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes (prevention and atrocities) Act.

Question of Law-

Whether Section 18A of the Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes (atrocities and prevention act) is Constitutional?


After the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Lalita Kumari Vs state of Uttar Pradesh (2013), registration of an FIR under, Section 154 CrPC for Cognisable offences are mandatory.
As for the bar on anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court in the latest Prithvi Raj Chauhan case concurred with the ruling in Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs state of Maharashtra (2012) that “when an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC-ST Act, no court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the bail application, the scope for an appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. The court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. The provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence.” The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the SC/ST amendment Act.

Submitted By: Dhritisha Saikia

Categories:Case Summary

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s