New Delhi, Sept. 23 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, observing that sufficient safeguards have been laid down by the top court in its past judgments that provide a check against misuse of the draconian provisions regarding arrest under the law. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said, "Sufficient safeguards have been laid down by a decision of the three-judge bench in Prathviraj Chauhan case (2020). We are not interested in entertaining this petition which is purportedly in public interest." The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by 19 persons led by Brijbhushan Saini, who claimed to be victims who were facing allegedly false prosecution under this Act. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain appearing for the petitioners pointed out that the 1989 Act, which has been amended in 2015 and later in 2018 carries draconian provisions which allows police to register a criminal case on a complaint without conducting a preliminary enquiry. This provision contained in Section 18A of the Act further denies anticipatory bail to an accused charged under this Act. "Section 18A of the Act is being widely misused. Jain said, referring to how it defeats the operation of section 35 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) which states that a police officer may arrest a person against whom a reasonable complaint or credible information has been received or reasonable suspicious exists that he has committed a cognizable offence which may extend to 7 years. The bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said, "Instances of misuse can be separately looked into by the court. But that cannot be a ground to doubt the constitutional validity of the Act." It said the Prathviraj Chauhan case deals with this aspect and a later judgement by this court in August 2024 in Shajan Skaria case holds that the bar under Section 18 of the 1989 Act would apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist pointing towards the commission of an offence. Further, the bench pointed out that the decisions of the top court have consistently held that in offences punishable with less than 7 years of sentence, arrest is not mandatory and this has been applied to special statutes such as the 1989 Act. Jain questioned, "But why should anticipatory bail be denied," to which the bench pointed out draconian provisions under PMLA and UAPA denying bail to accused even if the offence is punishable with sentence less than 7 years. "These are issues which the Parliament has decided in its wisdom. We cannot sit in the chair of the Parliament," the court said. Jain also referred to a Parliamentary question which states that Rs 493 crore has been distributed as compensation which is against rules. "These provisions are manifestly arbitrary, draconian, and disproportionate, creating a parallel caste-based criminal justice system that presumes guilt based solely on the accused's non-SC/ST status, thereby fostering reverse discrimination, misuse, and erosion of the rule of law," the petition said. It sought directions in the form of guidelines from the court to ensure police follow a procedure before registering the FIR or arresting a person as once arrested, the Act provides no fair procedure and safeguards against false accusation. It pointed out National Crime Bureau Report which establishes that in most of the cases under this Act, the police could not produce evidence even as the persons charged under this law sustained mental agony besides losing their prestige and dignity in society....