 In the 2018 case, it was observed that unilateral allegation made by a member of the SC/ST

community (Para 51) could not be the basis for prosecution. For it is unreasonable and unfair.
 Also, the intention of the Act to deter public servants from carrying out their bona fide
functions. Thus, exclusion of AB should be limited to genuine cases. Otherwise, as protection
would be available limit the exclusion so as to protect Art.21.

Note: The Supreme Court has deviated from established judicial opinion on this subject. It
has clearly said that the anticipatory bail provision for the first time was introduced on the
recommendation of the 41st Law Commission in 1973 and is merely a statutory right and not
part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the constitution. It was not
there in earlier Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Thus, anticipatory bail is not a
fundamental right1.

 Law should not result in caste hatred. (Para 75)

 Para 15-If a Court is not debarred from granting anticipatory bail even in most heinous
offences including murder, rape, dacoity, robbery, NDPS, sedition etc., which are punishable
with longer periods depending upon parameters for grant of anticipatory bail, taking away
such power in respect of offences under the Act is discriminatory and violative of Article 14.

Now after the Amendment S.18A(2)

 Para 21 –Misuse of the Act (HC Cases)

 Para 26- Statistics. Also, 36 (60% of arrests were unnecessary or unjustified. The arrest could
be justified only in grave offences to inspire the confidence of the victim.)

SC/ST Act dilution: Over a decade, crime rate against Dalits rose by 746%
https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/sc-st-act-dilution-over-a-decade-crime-
rate-against-dalits-rose-by-746-118040500106_1.html

Reliable Data Available:

Scheduled Castes (four Southern states): Out of the 55,299 crimes SCs pending investigation
at the start of 2016, the police investigated 39,629 cases (65.5%) and 16,654 cases (30.11%)
were pending investigation at the year end. The police filed charge sheets only in 31,042
cases (56.1%). Scheduled Tribes: The data in respect of crimes against STs are similar as
well. At the beginning of 2016, 9096 cases were pending investigation in India. The police
completed investigation in 6,490 cases (71.3%) while 2,602 cases (28.6%) were pending
investigation at the end of 2016. Of the cases disposed of, the police filed charge sheets in
5,277 (58.01%) cases.
Refer to: https://clpr.org.in/blog/caste-discrimination-in-south-india-a-study-of-ncrb-data-
part-ii/

1
https://thewire.in/law/sc-st-act-court-ruling-will-have-chilling-effect-on-reporting-crimes-against-dalits
 Note that Southern states contribute very less to the national average.

There are still a large number of pending cases involving SC/ST atrocities, showing that
justice is being delayed. States like Bihar show a very high pendency rate for both SC and ST
cases (95.9% and 94%). Almost all states have a pendency percentage above 80%,
representing an extreme backlog across the nation.
Of all cases filed by SC/STs under the act, almost 30 percent are still pending investigation.
On a state level, this proportion is highest for both SC and ST in Jharkhand (65.8% and
69.7% respectively). In contrast, some states record very low number of pending cases for SC
and ST such as Madhya Pradesh (9.7% and 7%).
Source: The Indian Express (https://indianexpress.com/article/india/crimes-against-sc-sts-
140-higher-than-that-of-general-public-in-gujarat-data-5136267/)

A Human Rights Watch Report talks about Police inaction.

(https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/02/12/hidden-apartheid/caste-discrimination-against-indias-
untouchables)

 Para 77 and Para 80- Lalita Kumari. Talks about the exception and arrest after FIR. Not
found in the Review Petition.
 Observations like the “Atrocities Act cannot be converted into charter for exploitation or
oppression by unscrupulous persons or by police for extraneous reasons” will mean that
victims of atrocity crimes will now think twice before filing cases because neither will an FIR
be filed immediately nor will the perpetrator be arrested. It is strange that the court did not
realise the fact that for the underprivileged, registration of an FIR itself is a huge challenge as
police officers routinely refuse to do so. The apex court had to pass several orders making the
registration of FIR mandatory.2
 In fact, Section 22 of PoA already protects public servants from all their actions taken in
good faith and no suit or prosecution or other legal proceedings can be initiated against any
public servant if he/she was acting in good faith.3

2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.