Balance Between Protection and Prevention of Misuse Under the SC/ST Act

Written by: Vikramjeet Singh, 4th Year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), Lovely Professional University

court.

 Introduction:

The caste system is a part of Indian civilisation, and discrimination based on caste is not a new trend; it has been there since ancient times. Such conflicts between various communities is due to various factors such as caste, social position, status, feeling of enmity, superiority, religious and political factors. To prevent such discrimination and atrocities, many legislations have been passed and The Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is the landmark statute among them. The main objective of the act, as provided in the preamble, is to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, to provide for Special Courts and the Exclusive Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Despite various amendments to the act, it has faced certain criticism over its misuse, especially to spread caste hatred and false allegations. This misuse has triggered social tensions, judicial scrutiny, and calls for procedural reforms. This article aimed to strike a balance between protection and prevention of misuse under this act.

Social context and importance:

SCs and STs have faced centuries of exclusion, social stigma and violence. Various other acts, such as the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, 1976 and the Indian Penal Code, have failed to effectively redress such issues. Parliament came up with SC/ST Act, which expanded the definition of crimes and prescribed stringent punishments and expeditious procedures. The word atrocity is not expressly defined under this act but refers to crimes punishable under section 3 (in which various crimes are mentioned as committed against the SC/ST person by any person who do not belong to the scheduled cast or scheduled Tribes. The prevention of atrocities is not only the objective of the act, it also aims to eliminate them. The positive points of the act are:

·       Provides legal recognition to the historical oppression faced by SCs and STs.

·       By providing strict legal punishments, the Act has acted as a deterrent, contributing to a decline in reported atrocities over time.

·       Stricter penalties for a public servant found guilty of the offences under this act.

·       It affirms right to equality.

·       It includes provisions for compensation, relief, and rehabilitation for victims of atrocities.

·       The Act mandates the establishment of Special Courts in districts for speedy justice.

·       The law calls for the establishment of monitoring authorities at both the State and National levels to oversee its effective implementation.

·       It initiated a shift in societal attitudes, encouraging the upper castes to reconsider their views and prejudices towards SCs and STs.

·       Encourages community participation in reporting and preventing atrocities.

·       Protects cultural identity and traditional practices of SCs and STs.

·       Helps build trust in the justice system among marginalized populations.

Misuse of the act:

The Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 was passed to prevent atrocities to SCs/STs as they are the vulnerable section of the society but it is misused to harass upper-class people with ulterior motive. False complaints are registered to take revenge, to gain monetary benefit, to harass others or spread hatred. The conviction rate under the Act has declined from 39.2% in 2020 to 32.4% in 2022, which indicates a serious issue in the provisions of the act.

Provisions prone to misuse:

1.     No Preliminary Inquiry Required Before FIR

FIRs can be filed without verification, which may lead to false or frivolous complaints. This provision is going against various laws like section 35 of BNSS 2023 (sec 41 of CrPC) states that no person can be arrested without credible information and article 21 of the Indian Constitution which states that no person can be deprived of his liberty without reasonable cause. But no such inquiry is done before registering an FIR in this case.

2.     Bar on Anticipatory Bail (Section 18)

The accused cannot seek anticipatory bail, even in cases where the complaint may be false or exaggerated. Section 18 of the act states that section 438 of the CrPC (sec 482 of BNSS,2023) will not apply to crimes committed under this act. It means the person who is entitled to file anticipatory bail as per section 438 of the code cannot apply for the same now because the complaint has been filed by SC/ST under the said act, which prohibits the application of sec 438.

3.     Broad and Vague Definitions of Atrocities

Terms like "insult" or "intimidation" are subjective and open to wide interpretation, making it easier to misuse.

4.     Automatic Arrest Provision

Police are required to arrest the accused immediately after an FIR is filed, without assessing the truth of the allegations. The fundamental legal principle which states that a person is presumed innocent until he has been proved guilty but the person is arrested under this act and presumed guilty unless declared innocent by the court.

5.     No Penal Consequences for False Complaints

The Act does not explicitly penalize or discourage false accusations, encouraging misuse for personal vendetta. Even if the case is proved to be false, no legal action can be taken under this act. 

Instances of Misuse:

Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2018:

Supreme Court looked into various reports of false cases and agreed that provision of Sec 3(1)(x) and Sec 18 have been misused and has become instrument for blackmailing. Supreme Court said, “The Act cannot be converted into a charter for exploitation or oppression by any unscrupulous person or by the police for extraneous reasons against other citizens. Any harassment of an innocent citizen, irrespective of caste or religion, is against the Constitution. This court must enforce such a guarantee. Law should not result in caste hatred.”

Supreme court held that there is no absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail in cases registered under SC/ ST Act if no prima facie case is made out or where by scrutiny it is found that complaint is made with mala fide intention. In order to prevent abuse of power regarding arrest under this act, court held that public servant can be arrested only after approval of appointing authority and non- public servant after approval of SSP. The court also directed that a preliminary enquiry may be conducted by DSP to find out whether the allegations are frivolous or not in order to prevent false implication of innocent. 

SC court said while delivering this judgement that its primary objective is to prevent arrest of innocent purpose. It is trying to balance liberties and rights of other individuals are also not at stake and it does not want to become an obstruction in the implementation of act nor was curbing the rights of SCs and STs.

This judgment was not welcomed and led to widespread backlash and unrest across the country. Members of the SC and ST communities protested, feeling betrayed by the decision. They were justified in demanding that their rights might be affected by this judgement since they are the marginalized group. But the SC aimed to protect the rights of innocent people without abuse of due process.

2018 Amendment:

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 nullified the Court’s 20^th March, 2018 judgment which had diluted the stringent provisions of the original Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Key features of the amendment:

·       Section 18A: For the Prevention of Atrocities Act, the preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of a First Information Report against any person. No anticipatory bail for person arrested under atrocities act.

·       Clearly defines crimes as atrocities against SCs/STs and prescribes punishment for the same.

·       All offences under the Act are cognizable, meaning police can arrest without a warrant and begin investigations without court approval.

·       States can identify areas prone to caste-based violence and appoint officers to maintain law and order.

·       It provides for the punishment for wilful neglect of duties by non-SC/ST public servants.

Prithvi Raj Chauhan v Union of India 2020 Judgement

Various petitions were filed to challenge the Amendment Act of 2018 but the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 and overruled its 2018 judgement.

The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Sec 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 (the Act), introduced by the 2018 Amendment to the Act. This section places bar on anticipatory bail and arrest can be made without FIR and without conducting a preliminary enquiry.

The Court gave two main reasons for withdrawing its earlier directions. First, the direstions in 2018 judgement placed stricter condition for filing of FIR than required in criminal, resulting in unequal treatment of SC/ST individuals. Second, the Court noted that the law was already unambiguous, so in the Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case, there was no justification for using its special powers under Article 142 to issue the directions. These powers should only be used when there is a gap or absence in the law which is not applied to 2018 case.

Sobhanakumari vs. State of Kerala & Ors. 2025

Kerala High Court in judgment dated February 13, 2025, emphasised the dual aspects of the legislation while hearing a case involving allegations under Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act- highlights concerns over misuse of SC/ST Act while emphasising its importance.

Court observed that while maintaining the legislative intent, “Undeniably, the intention is to protect the interests of members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities from exploitation and atrocities at the hands of other caste members… Genuine cases would require strict action as per law.”

The judgment pointed out certain red flags that may indicate false cases under the SC/ST Act. It noted that complaints made after failed police reports, adverse litigation outcome, or during ongoing legal disputes should be examined with extra caution. The Court stressed the important responsibility of investigating agencies and the judiciary in distinguishing genuine claims from false ones and stated that “have a very vital role in dissecting truth from falsehood and checking the fallacy of allegations.”In its directive to law enforcement, the court advised, “While registering crimes in such circumstances, investigating officers must apply their minds to avoid the false implication of innocent individuals in serious offenses.”

The judgment highlighted specific warning signs of potential false cases, stating that allegations under the SC/ST Act that arise after failed police complaints, adverse litigation outcomes, or during pending litigation between parties should be carefully scrutinized.The court emphasized the crucial role of investigating agencies and courts, stating that they “have a very vital role in dissecting truth from falsehood and checking the fallacy of allegations.”In its directive to law enforcement, the court advised, “While registering crimes in such circumstances, investigating officers must apply their minds to avoid the false implication of innocent individuals in serious offenses.”

Kiran vs Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr 2025

On September 1, 2025, the Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail is strictly prohibited under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This means that accuse cannot get anticipatory bail under sec 438 of the CrPC.  However, the Court clarified an important exception- if the FIR clearly shows that no prima facie case exists and the allegations appear to be clearly unfounded, the court may use its discretion to grant anticipatory bail.The Court introduced a limited safeguard to prevent misuse of the law. By providing this exception in cases where no prima facie case is made out, court emphasized the importance of balancing victim and accused rights in cases of false or malicious FIRs.

Maiku Lal Case (Sept, 2025)

The court of special judge (SC/ST Act) awarded six months’ imprisonment to a mason for lodging a false FIR under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, intending to wrongfully implicate the house owners. “The fundamental principle of Indian criminal law is that it is better to let 100 guilty persons go free than to convict one innocent person. When someone files a false FIR against another person, it strikes at the very core of this principle, which is unacceptable,” the court observed. This ruling will serve as a deterrent to others who might misuse this act for their own benefit.

On May 9, 2017, Maiku Lal lodged an FIR at the Alamnagar police station accusing Sumit Kalra and Amit Kalra of not paying his dues and abusing him with caste-based slurs. In the FIR, he said that the incident took place on March 10, 2017. He alleged that the house owners had paid only ₹3,05,100 and ₹1,77,603 was still pending which they had refused to pay. However, during the investigation, then Circle Officer of Alambagh, Meenakshi, found that Maiku Lal was not at the Kalras’ residence on the date of the alleged incident. On June 4, 2017, the CO submitted a final report to the court, stating that the FIR was fabricated and filed by Maiku Lal to extract money from them. The investigating officer also presented Maiku Lal’s call detail records, confirming he was not at the Kalras’ residence on March 10, 2017. The neighbours did not corroborate the incident.

Challenges in enforcement:

Despite the strong legislative framework provided by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; various amendments and rules the implementation of the Act remains inconsistent and inadequate across states. The main objective of the act is to protect the marginalised communities from caste-based discrimination but remains undermined by bureaucratic inertia, lack of political will, and institutional apathy. Low conviction rate and high misuse of its provision shows a systemic failure in timely investigation, weak prosecution. The Special courts under the Act are either not established or if established remain unfunctional leading to failure of timely justice.

In various cases, the investigation officers are not adequately trained to handle such cases under this act. It further leads to poor investigation and negligence. Sometimes the genuine cases are dismissed due to political motive which leads to the inadequate suffering to the victims.

The lack of uniform implementation guidelines, absence of accountability mechanisms, and political interference in enforcement and investigation severely hinder the Act’s main purpose. While protection from caste atrocities is of utmost importance in a democratic society, unchecked misuse—however rare—combined with poor implementation risks eroding public confidence in the law.

some argues that the 2018 judgement was good but others argue that the 2018 amendment was beneficial. General category people thinks that SCs/STs to be privileged to have special act, also have reservation provisions and this act has controversial arrest and no bail provisions. But on the other hand, SCs/ STs thinks it as a matter of right as they are the marginalised section of the society. The main problem arises when one uses their right to gain undue benefit over the rights of the others.

Conclusion:

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is the key pillar of India’s commitment to social justice, which aims to protect historically marginalized communities from caste-based discrimination and violence. But the success of the act depends not only on its legal strength but also on its fair and consistent implementation. Only these legislation will not solve the age old problem of discrimination, there is need to sensitise the people regarding caste equality.

There is a misuse of every act and that cannot be entirely figured out. The false cases under this act are still less in number as compared to the real victims of deeply entrenched caste-based atrocities. But the abuse of this act must be addressed through procedural safeguards.

There is need of a balanced approach- on one side it protects the marginalised section on the other hand ensures that the innocent persons are not wrongfully convicted. For this there is need of transparent enforcement mechanism, judicial sensitivity, proper training of law enforcement personnel, and depoliticized policymaking. It must ensure its ultimate objective by working as a shield for the oppressed and not a sword for the exploitation of innocent.

References:

1.     Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1969.

2.     SC/ST ACT: A LEGAL SHIELD OR A SHORTCUT FOR MISUSE? Available at https://www.juscorpus.com/sc-st-act-a-legal-shield-or-a-shortcut-for-misuse/ last assessed on 15 Sep. 2025.

3.     Kerala High Court highlights concerns over misuse of SC/ST Act while emphasising its importance available at https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/kerala-high-court-highlights-concerns-over-misuse-of-sc-st-act-while-emphasising-its-importance last assessed on 15 Sep. 2025.

4.     Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra (2018) 6 SCC 454.

5.     Prithvi Raj Chauhan v Union of India AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 1036.

6.     Sobhanakumari vs. State of Kerala & Ors. 2025 CRL.MC No. 139 of 2023.

7.     Kiran vs Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr 2025 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 8169 OF 2025).

8.     The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment act 2018.

9.     Punishment for misuse of SC ST act available at https://blog.ipleaders.in/punishment-for-misuse-of-sc-st-act/#Dr_Shubhash_Kashinath_Mahajan_v_State_of_Maharashtra_and_ors_2018_reversed last assessed on 15 Sep. 2025.

10.  Controversies Around Sc/St Act: Its Impact Use And Misuse available at https://lawcolloquy.com/journals/Ridhima%20final.pdf last assessed on 15 Sep. 2025.

11.  Important Judgment of the Supreme Court of India available at https://nhrc.nic.in/press-release/important-judgment-supreme-court-india last assessed on 15 Sep. 2025.

12.  Mason gets 6-month jail term for lodging false FIR under SC/ST Act available at https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/mason-gets-6-month-jail-term-for-lodging-false-fir-under-sc-st-act-101757444883486.html last assessed on 15 Sep. 2025.

13.  SC/ST Act & Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court’s Big Ruling Explained available on https://lawbeat.in/supreme-court-judgments/scst-act-anticipatory-bail-supreme-courts-big-ruling-explained-1516747 last assessed on 15 Sep. 2025.