New Delhi, September 22: In discussions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, two things are often mixed up: protecting genuine victims of caste-based crime, and a fair investigation of any complaint. The law demands that both be taken seriously. An accused being acquitted does not by itself prove that a complaint was deliberately false. Equally, simply calling a complaint “misuse” does not end a police investigation or a victim’s rights.
This article is general public legal information, not personal legal advice on any particular case. Consult a qualified lawyer with the sections, dates and documents of your case.
Key highlights
- Acquittal, lack of evidence or a closure report is not the same as a finding that a complaint was deliberately fabricated.
- Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) require the act to take place “within public view”; other sub-sections have different ingredients.
- The 2018 Subhash Kashinath Mahajan directions on preliminary inquiry and prior approval for arrest are no longer the law; Parliament added Section 18A and the Supreme Court upheld it in 2020.
- Anticipatory bail is generally barred where a prima facie offence under the Act is made out; courts can examine the narrow exception where the complaint does not disclose such an offence.
- Published crime data do not yield a reliable national percentage of deliberately false SC/ST complaints.
Why the SC/ST Atrocities Act was made
According to India’s official text of the law, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was enacted to prevent caste-based atrocities, to try such offences in special courts and to provide relief and rehabilitation to victims. It is not a law only about abusive words. Section 3 covers, each with its own conditions, not only insult and intimidation but also land, social boycott, forced labour, crimes against women and other acts. For each allegation, the ingredients of the specific sub-section actually invoked are examined.
The need for the law cannot be understated. In the Hitesh Verma case, the Supreme Court referred, in the Act’s background, to the historical problem of humiliation, violence and dispossession of property faced by SC/ST communities. A genuine victim’s access to an FIR, protection, evidence and a hearing is the central purpose of this law.
A “false case” and “allegations not proved” are not the same
Proof that a complaint was deliberately fabricated is a specific factual or judicial finding. Police not finding enough evidence, no chargesheet being filed, the benefit of doubt in court, or acquittal are different situations. A prosecution can also fail because of pressure on witnesses, poor investigation, delay or lack of evidence. So it is unfair to call a complainant false without seeing the relevant order and record. Conversely, if a court finds that the essential ingredients of an offence are missing even if the complaint is taken as true, it can end proceedings under that section; that too is not automatically a finding of malice.
In the Hitesh Verma judgment, the Supreme Court made clear that no collective presumption of misuse of the law can be made about people of any community. The facts and evidence of the individual case are decisive.
When do Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) apply?
Section 3(1)(r) involves intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of an SC/ST, and the incident taking place in “public view”. For Section 3(1)(s), abusing a person by caste name and its being in “public view” are relevant. That the accused is not a member of an SC/ST is also part of the text of Section 3(1). The place need not be public property; the question is whether members of the public could see or hear the alleged act. A private quarrel, or merely knowing a person’s caste, does not automatically attract these sections every time. But a genuine caste-based offence can also occur alongside a private or property dispute; the existence of a dispute does not make a complaint false. These points are explained in the Hitesh Verma and Sohanvir (2025) judgments.
This “public view” condition does not apply to every sub-section of the Act. For example, allegations about land or other kinds of atrocity are tested on different statutory ingredients. One-line rules circulating on social media, such as “it must happen in front of four people”, are no substitute for the law.
What the Supreme Court has said
| Case | Year | What it held | Status today |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subhash Kashinath Mahajan | 2018 | Directions on preliminary inquiry and prior approval before arrest | No longer the law: Section 18A added by Parliament; directions recalled on review |
| Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India | 2020 | Upheld Section 18A; bar on anticipatory bail does not apply where the complaint does not disclose a prima facie offence under the Act | Current law |
| Hitesh Verma | 2020 | Section 3(1)(r) charge quashed where the alleged insult was inside a house in a property dispute; other charges continued | Current law; not a ruling that all property-dispute complaints are false |
| Sohanvir v. State of Uttar Pradesh | December 2025 | Section 3(1)(s) proceedings quashed for want of “public view” on the complaint’s own case; trial on other charges continued | Current law |
The 2018 Subhash Kashinath Mahajan judgment and what changed
In the 2018 Subhash Kashinath Mahajan judgment, the court gave directions on a preliminary inquiry and approval before arrest. It would be wrong to present these as the general rule today. Parliament later added Section 18A, and those directions were withdrawn on review by the Supreme Court. In Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), the court upheld the amendment and clarified the present position.
2020: Prathvi Raj Chauhan and Hitesh Verma
Under Sections 18 and 18A, there is a general statutory bar on anticipatory bail where a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act is made out. But Prathvi Raj Chauhan clarified that the bar does not apply if the complaint does not disclose a prima facie offence under the Act at all. This is a limited, fact-based judicial test, not automatic anticipatory bail for every accused. The court also recognised the power to quash proceedings in exceptional cases.
In Hitesh Verma, on a record of a property dispute and an alleged insult inside a house, the essential ingredient of Section 3(1)(r) was not found. The court quashed the chargesheet under that section but allowed proceedings for other offences to continue. The judgment does not declare every SC/ST complaint linked to a property dispute false.
An important 2025 example
In Sohanvir v. State of Uttar Pradesh (December 2025), the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings under Section 3(1)(s) because the “public view” ingredient was not made out on the complaint’s own account, but allowed the trial on the other charges to go on. The court did not hold a full trial of the complaint’s truth or declare anyone “false”. This shows why allegations are tested charge by charge.
Is an inquiry or arrest mandatory before an FIR?
Under Section 18A, there is no general requirement of a mandatory preliminary inquiry to register an FIR under this Act, nor of prior sanction for a necessary arrest. An FIR is the stage of recording information, not conviction. Nor is it the rule that every accused must be arrested as soon as an FIR is filed. The need for arrest, the applicable procedure, evidence and judicial oversight are separate questions.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in force since July 1, 2024, sets out the procedure for recording information, arrest, notice and bail. Because older judgments cite sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), their BNSS equivalents and the transitional position in a current case should be checked with a lawyer. Do not ignore a valid notice from the police or a court.
Anticipatory bail, regular bail and quashing
Anticipatory bail is relief at the stage of apprehended arrest; regular bail after arrest is a separate question. Discharge before charges are framed and quashing of proceedings by a High Court are different remedies again. The bar on anticipatory bail where a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act is made out cannot be taken lightly. A September 2025 Supreme Court judgment also drew the distinction between a brief examination at the bail stage and a full “mini trial”. The right application should be chosen only after looking at the case documents and the current state of the law. Do not mix up the old CrPC Sections 438 and 482 with today’s BNSS Section 482 (anticipatory bail) and Section 528 (inherent powers of the High Court) without context.
If someone believes they have been falsely implicated
- Consult a lawyer experienced in criminal cases at once, with the FIR, the sections invoked and the dates.
- Preserve messages, call records, CCTV, location data and details of independent witnesses lawfully; do not alter evidence.
- Obtain the FIR and available case papers through the proper legal process; follow valid instructions from the police or the court.
- Discuss with your lawyer, on the facts, bail, discharge or a limited challenge in the High Court.
- Before calling a complaint deliberately false or taking retaliatory action, get the clear legal basis and the relevant judgments checked. Threatening or pressuring the complainant or witnesses, or evading the investigation, is wrong and risky.
What protection does a genuine victim get?
Section 15A of the Act contains provisions on the rights of victims and witnesses, including information and the right to be heard. Special courts, relief and rehabilitation are provided for in the Act and in the Centre’s published rules. Those needing help can approach the local police, the district administration, the special public prosecutor or the legal services authority. If there are problems in registering a complaint or getting protection, ask a qualified lawyer about the formal remedies available. Advisories from the Union Home Ministry urge states to enforce the law effectively.
What do the data say about “misuse”?
The Social Justice Ministry’s July 2026 release cites NCRB crime data up to 2024. But registered cases, chargesheets, convictions, acquittals and pending trials are different measures. Published figures do not automatically yield a reliable national percentage of deliberately false SC/ST complaints, and this article does not give any such percentage. Before claiming any rate, the definition, year and case category of the relevant NCRB table must be checked.
Readers’ common questions
Does any abuse automatically attract the SC/ST Act?
Not every abuse. The caste-related and other essential ingredients of the sub-section alleged will be examined. Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) have the “public view” ingredient; other sub-sections have different conditions.
Does the law never apply in personal or land disputes?
Not that either. A genuine caste-based atrocity can occur alongside a dispute. Neither the existence of a dispute alone, nor the victim’s caste alone, is decisive.
Is arrest certain once an FIR is filed?
No. FIR, investigation, arrest and conviction are separate stages. But no one can promise that arrest is impossible either.
Can anticipatory bail be granted?
Where a prima facie offence under the Act is made out, there is a general bar. If no such offence is made out even taking the complaint as true, the court may consider the limited exception. The outcome depends on the facts.
Does acquittal mean the complaint was false?
No. Acquittal and a deliberately fabricated complaint have different legal meanings. Do not draw conclusions without reading the reasons for the judgment.
What if a complaint is proved false?
Ask a lawyer about the remedies available under the relevant judicial finding and the general law. Do not take action against, or publicly accuse, a complainant on your own assumption.
Where can a genuine victim seek help?
The police, the district administration, the special public prosecutor and the district legal services authority are possible institutional routes. Cite the provisions of the Act and rules for protection and relief.
What to watch
- Further Supreme Court and High Court rulings applying the “public view” test and the anticipatory bail exception.
- How courts apply BNSS procedure in SC/ST Act cases after the July 2024 transition.
- NCRB data releases, read carefully by category and stage of the case.
What it means
Using the law correctly depends both on effective action against genuine caste-based atrocities and on a fair, timely investigation of every allegation. Generalised accusations about any community, treating acquittal as proof of a lie, or presenting the withdrawn 2018 directions as current law will all mislead readers. The case documents and the latest judicial position decide the next legal step.
This article was first published in Hindi and has been translated. The Press of Asia now publishes in English only.
Sources
- India Code: The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment: The Act and rules
- Supreme Court of India: Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (2018)
- Supreme Court of India: Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020)
- Supreme Court of India: Hitesh Verma (2020)
- Supreme Court of India: Sohanvir v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025)
- BPRD: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
The National Desk covers India's politics, governance, security and public-interest news. Stories are checked against at least two credible sources before publication.
