"These provisions will not be struck down. Law should be as it was," observed the Court.
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved orders on a batch of petitions challenging the amendment to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act , 2018, Section 18A, which reintroduced the non-availability of anticipatory bail for a person accused of atrocities against the communities.
The top court said that ever since it set aside its decision of March 20, 2018, there was no use to hear this petition as the old provisions have been restored.
It further said it will simply clarify that after it's judgment setting aside the March 20 directions, anticipatory bail will only be applicable to persons where the Court concludes no prima facie case is made out.
The Centre had made amendments to the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 1989 after its provisions were diluted by the apex court in March, last year. The court had held that there will be no automatic arrest on a complaint filed under the act and it can only be made after approval of the appointing authority. It also included a provision of anticipatory bail.
A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and S Ravindra Bhat hinted that it will uphold the amendments made by Centre in the Act to restore immediate arrest and ban anticipatory bail.
"We are not diluting any provisions... these provisions will not be struck down. Law should be as it was... They will be left as it was prior to the judgement on review petition and amendments in the Act," the bench observed.
The court said that it will clarify whether the police can hold a preliminary probe before taking any action on a complaint under the Act, in a case it is of prima facie view that complaints are false.
The court observed that with regard to the 'anticipatory bail', the judgment of the constitution bench passed is not made out.
The old provision would be restored in light of the review petition delivered on September 30, the Court remarked.
The court had on Tuesday recalled its earlier order that diluted the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act, 1989 after the Centre filed a review petition contending that the court should not have ventured to frame guidelines as it was in the domain of the legislature.
(With ANI inputs)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "File Photo")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}