Supreme Court bans automatic arrest under SC/ST Act

The Supreme Court has introduced the provision of anticipatory bail to curb down rampant misuse of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, while also directing that there would be no automatic arrest on any complaint filed under the law and a preliminary inquiry must be conducted by police within 7 days before taking any action. A bench of Justices A. K. Goel and U. U. Lalit introduced the provision of anticipatory bail despite Section- 18 of the Act denying pre-arrest bail. The bench also, stated that such a protective provision was required to safeguard the interest and dignity of innocents and prevent the misuse of the act as an instrument to blackmail or wreak personal vengeance. It further said working of the SC/ST Act & quot should not result in perpetuating casteism which can have an adverse impact on the integration of society and constitutional values& quot . & quot In view of the acknowledged abuse of law of arrest in cases under the Act, the arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by the SSP, which may be granted in appropriate cases if considered necessary for reasons recorded. Such reasons must be scrutinized by the Magistrate for permitting further detention. To avoid the false implication of an innocent, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted by the DSP concerned to find out whether the allegations make out a case under the act and that the allegations are not frivolous or motivated,& quot the bench said. The bench added that the judiciary could not remain a mute spectator when the law was being misused to frame innocents in criminal cases and the court had to intervene for the protection of people's liberty as a presumption of innocence was a human right. It noted that the law was framed by Parliament for the protection of historically underprivileged sections of society but now it was being misused. & quot This court is not expected to adopt a passive or negative role and remain a bystander or a spectator if a violation of rights is observed. It is necessary to fashion new tools and strategies so as to check injustice and violation of fundamental rights. No procedural technicality can stand in the way of enforcement of fundamental rights. There are innumerable decisions of this court where this approach has been adopted and directions issued with a view to enforce fundamental rights which may sometimes be perceived as legislative in nature. Such directions can certainly be issued and continued till an appropriate legislation is enacted,& quot the bench said.