Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Advocate Sandeep Lamba has approached the Supreme Court claiming that the 2018 amendment to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities ) Act of 1989 has become an instrument or mode to blackmail innocent citizens and public servants and the like. Earlier, lawyers Prithviraj Chauhan and Priyanka Sharma had moved the court filing a similar PIL.
The petitioners' grievance has arisen from the fact even as the verdict of the Court in the case EOF Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan lies pending, the amendment was previously cleared by the Lok Sabha rendering the judgment quite redundant. A new section as 18A has been introduced in the Act which does away with the procedure of undertaking inquiry and approval before making an arrest. It also brings on the unconditional ban on anticipatory bail when an offence has been committed under the said Act.
The decision that was made in the case of Subhash Kashinath was followed by an uproar in the nation. Several state governments rose against this and sought a review. The Bench however refused. It has been contended that the Act of 1989 is used to quench vested interests and is prone to misuse for the monetary incentive that is available under the Act when a case is lodged under Article 12(4).
The petition further mentions that the act of amendment is mainly to secure vote bank by the government, ahead of the elections. It is mainly to appease certain sections of the society. It has been argued that the provision of anticipatory bail is unjust and wrongful arrests violate Article 21. Arrests can oh be made after scrutiny and after due compliance to the procedures laid down in the CrPC. Basing the arguments on the decision made in the case of Shreya Singhal in 2015, where 66A was struck down for violating the fundamental rights, Lamba said that the amendment violates articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
86540
103860
630
114
59824