SC refuses to stay amendments to SC/ST Act

Image
ANI General News
Last Updated : Jan 24 2019 | 2:01 PM IST

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to stay Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 that rule out any provision for anticipatory bail for a person accused of atrocities against SC/STs.

A bench headed by Justice AK Sikri said the petitions against the amendment and review pleas against the March 20 judgement on automatic arrests and anticipatory bail, should be heard together.

Refusing to stay the amended Act passed by Parliament, the bench said: "No interim order can be passed in these matters".

Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, said the court should first decide the review petition, filed against the March 2018 judgement, and then fresh petitions against the amendments could be heard.

Appearing for the petitioners against the amendments, senior advocate Vikas Singh questioned the central government on bringing new law when its review petition was already pending before the top court.

The bench now posted before Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi to decide whether the review petition and petitions against amendments should be heard together or not.

On March 20 last year, the apex court had passed the judgement that there will be no automatic arrest on a complaint filed under the Act. It had also introduced anticipatory bail provision under the Act.

However, the Centre had made amendments in the Act to overcome the top court's order diluting the provision of arrest under the law.

The two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had passed a slew of directions and said a public servant could be arrested in cases lodged under the SC/ST Act only after prior approval by the competent authority.

The amendments provide that no preliminary inquiry would be required for registering a criminal case and an arrest under this law would not be subject to any approval.

The top court is seized of a bunch of pleas opposing amendments to the SC/ST Act. The pleas alleged that Parliament had "arbitrarily" decided to amend the law.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jan 24 2019 | 7:23 AM IST

Next Story