Challenge to SC/ST Amendment Act: No Stay and Matter posted for final hearing on Feb 19

The Supreme Court today listed the challenge to provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 [SC/ST Amendment Act] for final hearing on February 19..A batch of petitions in this regard are placed before the Court. One of the petitions, filed by the Centre, seeks a review of the Supreme Court decision rendered by the Bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra..The verdict had made it imperative for prior sanction to be sought before prosecuting an officer for a complaint under the SC/ST Act. This judgment was met with nationwide protests on the grounds that the judgment “dilutes” the provisions of the Act..Parliament had, in August 2018, brought in an amendment to the SC/ST Act inserting additional provisions that effectively reversed the effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment..Petitions challenging this amendment are also tagged with the review petition, and will be heard together..The Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Indu Malhotra today listed the matter for final hearing on February 19. In the meantime, no stay on the amendments has been ordered..While hearing the Centre’s review petition last year, the Court had stated that it had only reiterated the settled law of arrest while passing the controversial judgment. It had refused to stay its judgment, while observing so..After the Centre brought in a law amending the SC/ST, the same was challenged in the Supreme Court. The petition filed by Advocates Prithvi Raj Chauhan and Priya Sharma assails the “arbitrary manner” in which the Centre altered the directions issued by the Court in the SC/ST judgement “after examining all the relevant facts and data” on the Act..The petition further states that the SC/ST Act has become “an instrument of blackmail“, and is “prone to misuse on account of monetary incentive and to exact vengeance and satisfy vested interest”..Last week, a three-judge Bench of the Court declined to stay the Act, while referring the matter to the Chief Justice for listing before an appropriate Bench.