The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) was made to protect members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from atrocities, discrimination, and harassment.
Important Supreme Court Judgments
1️. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018)
The Supreme Court of India held:
- No automatic arrest under the SC/ST Act.
- Preliminary inquiry required before registering FIR.
- Approval required before arresting public servants.
This judgment was controversial because it was seen as diluting the Act.
2️. Parliament Amendment (2018)
After protests across India, Parliament amended the Act and:
- Restored immediate arrest provision.
- Removed the requirement of preliminary inquiry.
- Barred anticipatory bail in most cases.
3️. Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020)
The Supreme Court upheld the 2018 amendment and clarified:
- No anticipatory bail in genuine SC/ST cases.
- However, if no prima facie case is made out, courts can grant relief.
Current Legal Position
- FIR can be registered immediately.
- No anticipatory bail if prima facie offence is made out.
- Courts can quash false or motivated cases.
Here are the **latest Supreme Court of India updates related to the SC/ST Act and caste-rights issues from 2024–2026 (with reliable sources):
Latest Supreme Court Updates on SC/ST Act & Related Matters (2024–2026)
1. Caste-based abuse alone isn’t an offence under SC/ST Act (2026)
- The Supreme Court ruled that just insulting or abusing someone from an SC/ST community is not automatically punishable under the SC/ST Act unless there is clear intent to humiliate on account of caste.
- Both conditions must be shown:
- the victim belongs to SC/ST, and
- the act was committed due to their caste.
- In the absence of these, proceedings under the Act can be cancelled.
2. Court quashes proceedings where offence lacked “public view” (2025)
- The SC quashed proceedings under the SC/ST Act, holding offences occurring inside a private home without public view may not attract the Act.
- However, related charges under the IPC (general criminal law) can still continue.
3. Victim’s right under Section 15A (2025)
- The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 15A, a victim has the right to be heard during bail proceedings — but not a guaranteed favourable outcome just because objections are raised.
- High Courts cannot direct joint trials or procedural decisions that go beyond statutory bail scope.
4. Anticipatory bail position reaffirmed (2025)
- The Supreme Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is largely barred in genuine SC/ST atrocity cases unless there is no prima facie case made out against the accused.
- This strengthens the pre-arrest bail limitations under the Act.
5. SC rejects plea about caste status post-conversion (2025)
- In a recent instance, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea where a person argued that religious conversion should not affect caste status for SC/ST law protection. The court held artificial caste attachment arguments aren’t sustainable.
⭕ Context: Internal Reservation in Supreme Court Staff
While not directly a judgment on the SC/ST Act, the Supreme Court for the first time introduced reservation quotas (15% for SC, 7.5% for ST) for recruitment and promotion of its own staff — a symbolic step toward inclusion within the judiciary’s internal workforce.
Summary of Key Trends (2024–26)
✔ Narrower Interpretation of SC/ST Act Terms
The Supreme Court is clarifying when the Act applies — emphasising intent + public view, and not mere caste identity or isolated abuse.
✔ Procedural Safeguards in Bail
Victims must be heard, but favorable outcomes aren’t automatic; anticipatory bail remains restricted.
✔ Protective Aim Upheld
The Court continues to describe the SC/ST Act as a protective statute aimed at safeguarding vulnerable communities.
✔ Internal Judiciary Reforms
Introduction of SC/ST reservations in Supreme Court staff recruitment marks a noteworthy institutional reform.
Anticipatory Bail Position under SC/ST Act (Latest Legal Position – 2026)
The law relating to anticipatory bail under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is now well-settled by the Supreme Court of India.
1️. General Rule – Anticipatory Bail Barred
Section 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act clearly state:
❌ Anticipatory bail is not available for offences under the SC/ST Act.
This means normally an accused cannot seek protection under Section 438 CrPC (now Section 482 BNSS equivalent protection).
2️. Important Exception – No Prima Facie Case
In Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court clarified:
✔ If no prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act is made out,
✔ Or allegations are patently false / motivated,
Then courts can grant anticipatory bail.
So the bar is not absolute.
3️. What Courts Check Before Granting Relief
While deciding anticipatory bail in SC/ST matters, courts examine:
- Whether the complainant belongs to SC/ST
- Whether caste-related insult was made
- Whether it was in public view (important for Section 3(1)(r)(s))
- Whether there was intent to humiliate on account of caste
- Whether FIR appears mala fide or counter-blast
If these ingredients are missing → anticipatory bail may be granted.
4️. Recent Trend (2024–2026)
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held:
✔ Mere abuse is not enough — intent linked to caste must be shown
✔ If basic ingredients are missing → protection can be granted
✔ If prima facie case exists → anticipatory bail strictly barred
The Court balances:
- Protection of vulnerable communities
- Prevention of misuse of the Act
Practical Defence Strategy
If appearing for accused:
- Highlight absence of “public view”
- Show dispute is civil/personal, not caste-based
- Argue lack of caste-specific intent
- Seek interim protection first
- Alternatively, file petition for quashing under Section 482 CrPC / BNSS
Final Position (Short Answer)
| Situation | Anticipatory Bail |
| Clear SC/ST offence made out | ❌ Not allowed |
| No prima facie case | ✔ Allowed |
| False / motivated FIR | ✔ Possible |
Quashing of FIR under SC/ST Act (Latest Legal Position)
Quashing of FIR under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is possible, but courts act very cautiously.
Application is filed before the Supreme Court of India or concerned High Court under:
- Section 482 CrPC (old law)
- Section 528 BNSS (new criminal procedure)
1️. Can FIR under SC/ST Act be Quashed?
✔ Yes — if no prima facie case is made out.
❌ No — if FIR clearly discloses ingredients of the offence.
The Supreme Court has clarified this in
Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India.
2️. When Quashing is Allowed
High Court may quash FIR if:
(A) Basic Ingredients Missing
Example:
- No caste-related words mentioned
- No allegation of “public view”
- No intention to humiliate on account of caste
For Section 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s), “public view” is mandatory.
(B) Purely Civil or Personal Dispute
If dispute is:
- Property dispute
- Matrimonial dispute
- Business rivalry
And SC/ST sections added only to pressurise → FIR may be quashed.
(C) Mala Fide / Counter-blast FIR
If FIR appears filed:
- After long delay
- As retaliation to earlier complaint
- With vague and omnibus allegations
(D) Compromise (Limited Scope)
Serious offences under SC/ST Act are non-compoundable, but in rare cases where ingredients are absent, court may quash to secure ends of justice.
3️. Important Supreme Court Principles
The Supreme Court consistently holds:
✔ High Court must see only FIR contents (not defence evidence)
✔ If ingredients are disclosed → no quashing
✔ SC/ST Act is a special protective law → strict scrutiny
However, misuse should also be prevented.
4️. Difference: Quashing vs Anticipatory Bail
| Point | Quashing | Anticipatory Bail |
| Stage | Before/after charge-sheet | Before arrest |
| Effect | FIR ends permanently | Only arrest protection |
| Power | High Court/Supreme Court | Sessions/High Court |
| Standard | No prima facie offence | Doubtful ingredients |
5️. Practical Drafting Grounds
While filing quashing petition:
- Quote exact FIR allegations
- Show missing ingredients of specific section
- Highlight absence of “public view”
- Show background dispute
- Attach prior litigation if counter-blast
Example Situation
If FIR says:
“He abused me during argument.”
But does NOT mention:
- Caste-based words
- Public place
- Intention linked to caste
Strong ground for quashing.
Final Legal Position (2026)
✔ Quashing is possible
✔ Bar under Section 18 applies to anticipatory bail, not to quashing power
✔ High Court’s inherent power remains intact
Practical Defence Strategy in SC/ST Act Cases (2026 Guide)
Under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, courts take allegations seriously because it is a protective statute.
However, defence strategy depends on stage of case and ingredients of offence.
Below is a structured practical approach:
1️. At FIR Stage (Immediately After Registration)
A. Examine Basic Ingredients
For Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s), check:
- Is complainant SC/ST?
- Are caste-specific words mentioned?
- Was incident in public view?
- Was there intent to humiliate due to caste?
If any ingredient missing → strong defence.
B. Anticipatory Bail Strategy
As clarified in
Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India,
Anticipatory bail is barred only if prima facie case exists.
Defence approach:
- Argue FIR does not disclose ingredients
- Highlight civil/matrimonial/business dispute background
- Show delay in FIR
- Point out vague/omnibus allegations
Seek interim protection first.
C. Collect Evidence Immediately
- CCTV footage
- Call recordings
- Location proof
- Previous complaints filed by accused
- Witness statements
Early collection is crucial.
2️. During Investigation Stage
A. Cooperate but Protect Rights
- Join investigation when required
- Avoid unnecessary statements
- Do not admit facts casually
B. Challenge Addition of SC/ST Sections
If police mechanically added sections:
- File representation before SP
- Seek alteration of charges
- Move High Court for quashing
3️. Quashing Strategy (High Court)
File petition under inherent powers.
Grounds:
- No public view
- No caste-based intention
- Purely private dispute
- FIR is counter-blast
Courts are cautious but will interfere if ingredients absent.
4️. If Charge-Sheet Filed
Now focus shifts to:
Discharge Application
Argue:
- No prima facie material
- Ingredients not satisfied
Trial Strategy
Cross-examination focus:
- Ask exact caste words used
- Establish absence of public persons
- Show personal enmity
- Expose contradictions
Small inconsistencies matter heavily in SC/ST trials.
5️. Common Defence Angles
✔ Incident happened inside house (no public view)
✔ General abuse, not caste-targeted
✔ No independent witness
✔ Delay in FIR without explanation
✔ Counter-case already filed by accused
6️. Important Risk Points
- Do not rely only on “false case” argument
- Courts presume seriousness
- Victim has right to be heard at bail stage
- Social media statements by accused can harm defence
7️. Tactical Advice (Court Practice Based)
- Seek certified caste certificate proof
- Demand specific mention of caste in FIR
- Avoid aggressive tone against complainant
- Maintain clean conduct during trial
- Consider settlement angle cautiously (law is strict)
Strategic Flow (Simple Model)
FIR → Check Ingredients → Seek Bail/Quashing →
If fails → Discharge → Trial Defence → Appeal
Key Principle
The defence is strongest when: Ingredients of offence are legally missing — not merely when facts are denied.
Add a Comment