Back
Dismisses Brijbhushan Saini's PIL Challenging 2018 SC/ST Act Amendment as 2020 Ruling Upheld
The on Tuesday dismissed a filed by Brijbhushan Saini that challenged the constitutional validity of the 2018 amendments to the . A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana refused to entertain the petition, holding that the validity of the amendments had already been settled by the Court’s 2020 judgment in .
The 2018 amendment, which introduced into , restored several stringent provisions that had been temporarily diluted by an earlier ruling. Among other things, eliminated the requirement of a before registering a , did away with the need for from the appointing authority or senior police officer before arresting an accused, and reinstated the on the grant of under . The amendment was ’s response to widespread protests following the Court’s judgment in , which had introduced procedural safeguards that critics argued weakened the protection intended for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Background: The Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Judgment and the Legislative Reversal
In , a two-judge bench of the in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan issued a series of directions aimed at preventing what it perceived as potential misuse of . The Court held that there was no absolute bar on where a case was not made out or where the complaint appeared to be . It further directed that, in cases involving public servants, arrest could only be made after obtaining approval from the appointing authority, and for non-public servants, approval from the Senior Superintendent of Police. Additionally, the Court mandated a by a Deputy Superintendent of Police to assess whether the allegations disclosed an offence under the Act and were not frivolous or motivated.
The judgment triggered a nationwide backlash, culminating in a Bharat Bandh in . In response, the moved swiftly to amend the law. passed the , inserting , which explicitly nullified the directions issued by the Court. The amendment restored the pre-2018 position: no , no for arrest, and a complete bar on .
The 2020 Precedent: Prithvi Raj Chauhan
The constitutional validity of the 2018 amendment was challenged before the in . On , a three-judge bench—comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, and S. Ravindra Bhat—upheld the amendment. The Court noted that the directions concerning and for arrest had already been recalled in review proceedings in . It held that was not unconstitutional merely because it sought to restore the statutory position concerning these safeguards.
However, the Court in Prithvi Raj Chauhan also carved out an important safeguard: while and exclude the application of in cases under the Act, the bar would not apply where the complaint itself does not make out a case attracting the provisions of . The Court recognised the power of constitutional courts to intervene in exceptional cases to prevent .
Present Challenge: Arguments of and Misuse
In the present PIL, advocate , appearing for Brijbhushan Saini, argued that the on under the Act amounts to “.” He contended that the conviction rates under the Act are low and alleged that the provisions are prone to misuse. Jain also highlighted the case of Vishnu Tiwari, who allegedly spent 20 years in jail over a false SC/ST Act case, to underscore the potential for abuse.
Jain further questioned the distribution of ₹493 crore as compensation under the Act, claiming that such disbursements invite people to file frivolous FIRs. He relied on a speech by a member to support this contention. On the legal front, he submitted that the 2018 amendment could not “validate” the original provisions without curing the defects pointed out by the in the Subhash Kashinath Mahajan judgment. He described as “more draconian” and urged the bench to test the law against .
Court’s Response: Safeguards Already in Place
The bench was not persuaded. Justice Joymalya Bagchi responded to the submission regarding the case of Vishnu Tiwari by observing, “The acts [against] an individual would not be good ground to revisit a law which has been upheld by a bench comprising [3 judges]. 3 judges have given stamp of approval to that law. Why within 5 years we will revisit it?” The Chief Justice added that a case of abuse of provisions can be taken care of through the exercise of judicial powers, commenting, “It does not mean that the statute itself [is bad].”
When Jain argued that the amendment amounted to and was further dividing society, Justice V. Mohana noted that all apprehensions had been taken care of in the 2020 decision. The judge emphasised that despite , an FIR invoking can be quashed on a . Justice Bagchi also referred to a recent decision where the bar under was restricted, observing that a mere reference to will not be a ground to rule out . “Courts have the right to examine at least whether a case is made out,” the judge said.
The BNSS Angle: Section 35 as Additional Safeguard
An important dimension emerged during the hearing. Justice Bagchi noted that —which mandates prior notice before arrest in certain cases—will apply to . He referred to the interpretation of in the case, where the held that the restriction on arrest also applies to special statutes. “For that we need not declare . [We] read the two provisions analogously,” Justice Bagchi stated. This observation suggests that courts may still have the power to scrutinise arrests under through the lens of BNSS Section 35, providing an additional layer of protection against arbitrary detention.
Legal Implications and Takeaways
The dismissal of the PIL reaffirms the constitutional validity of the 2018 amendment and the binding nature of the Prithvi Raj Chauhan precedent. For legal practitioners, the key takeaway is that while bars as a general rule, the has consistently held that this bar is not absolute. Where the complaint fails to disclose a case under , courts can still entertain applications for under or of the Constitution. Similarly, the application of BNSS Section 35 provides a procedural safeguard against mechanical arrests.
The judgment also underscores the reluctance of the to revisit its own precedents within a short span, especially when the legislature has acted to restore the original intent of the law. The debate over balancing the protective purpose of with concerns about misuse is likely to continue, but for now, the legal framework remains intact. The Court’s insistence on case-by-case offers a pragmatic middle path, allowing courts to prevent abuse without striking down the law.
Conclusion
The ’s decision to dismiss Brijbhushan Saini’s PIL is a clear reaffirmation of the 2020 judgment in Prithvi Raj Chauhan and the legislative choice embodied in the 2018 amendment. While the petitioner raised valid concerns about potential misuse and low conviction rates, the bench found that sufficient safeguards—both judicial and statutory—already exist to address such issues. The case serves as a reminder that the judiciary respects legislative wisdom unless a clear constitutional violation is established, and that the fight against caste-based atrocities remains a paramount objective of the legal system.
