Equal Before the Law? Six Hard Questions About the SC/ST Act, Answered With Facts
Equal Before the Law? Six Hard Questions About the SC/ST Act, Answered With Facts
A viral poster claims India treats terrorists more fairly than ordinary citizens accused under the SC/ST Act. Is that true? Let's test it, question by question.
A statue of Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason: the verdict should depend on evidence, not on caste, religion or status. Yet when an ordinary man in a village is caught in a case he calls false, that blindfold feels very thin. The poster going around social media taps into exactly that feeling.
The worry is real. But a strong argument needs solid facts, so here are the six questions people ask most, in plain language.
The questions
No, that comparison doesn't hold up. Ajmal Kasab was captured on 26 November 2008, the night of the attack. His trial came afterwards, and he was hanged on 21 November 2012. Arrest first, trial later is how serious offences work everywhere. Under the UAPA (Section 43D(5)) bail is actually harder to get, not easier.
The poster's real target is narrower: the extra-strict features of the SC/ST Act. That is the fair question, and it deserves a straight answer.
Because of a general rule, not an SC/ST rule. In Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2013) the Supreme Court held that an FIR must be registered whenever a cognisable offence is disclosed. Preliminary inquiry is allowed only in limited categories such as matrimonial disputes, corruption cases and unexplained delay.
Two provisions. Section 18 bars anticipatory bail (now read with Section 482 of the BNSS, earlier Section 438 CrPC). Section 18A, added in 2018, says no preliminary inquiry is needed and no prior approval is needed before arrest.
The Act exists because ordinary criminal law was failing victims of caste violence. It also provides special courts, victim compensation and witness protection.
How courts and Parliament clashed
Not entirely. If the complaint doesn't disclose the ingredients of the offence, courts can and do grant relief. The real problem is the cost: time, money and stress spent to get that relief.
The same data is used by both sides.
Misuse camp: conviction fell from about 39–40% (2020) to 32–33% (2022), and over 60% of cases end in acquittal or discharge. In NCRB's 2016 figures, as reported by The Wire, police classed 5,347 cases as false and 869 as mistake of fact.
Weak-implementation camp: an acquittal is not proof of a false case; hostile witnesses, pressure and poor investigation explain many. Roughly 96% of cases were pending trial in NCRB 2021, and crimes against Scheduled Castes rose from 42,793 (2018) to 57,582 (2022).
Bihar is among the four states (with UP, Rajasthan and MP) that together account for nearly two-thirds of cases, at roughly 7,000.
The data proves neither "the law is only a weapon" nor "misuse never happens". It proves that investigation, prosecution and trial quality are weak. Real victims wait years for justice, and innocent accused wait years to clear their names.
General information only, not legal advice:
- Anticipatory bail under BNSS Section 482 if no prima facie case is made out.
- Quashing the FIR through the High Court's inherent powers, BNSS Section 528 (earlier CrPC 482).
- Action against a false complainant under provisions like BNS Sections 217 and 248 (earlier IPC 182 and 211), rarely used in practice, which is itself a gap.
- Preserve evidence: call records, messages, CCTV, witness names and timings.
What a balanced fix looks like
- Register the FIR, but investigate fast. A senior officer, and a fixed deadline for a chargesheet or closure report.
- Fast special courts and enough public prosecutors. 90–96% pendency hurts everyone.
- Real accountability for proven false complaints, without frightening genuine victims.
- Open state-wise data on "false", "mistake of fact" and "insufficient evidence" closures.
- Witness protection so genuine cases don't collapse under pressure.
- Police training on when the sections apply and when they don't.
Note that because of Section 18A, reviving something like a preliminary inquiry would need Parliament to amend the law. That is an open policy debate with serious arguments on both sides.
Supporters of the Act argue that victims of caste violence often can't even file a complaint because of threats, social boycott or police apathy, and that quick arrest and no anticipatory bail protect witnesses from pressure. In their view, the problem is not misuse but a low conviction rate and a slow system. A conclusion that ignores either side is incomplete.
The bottom line
"Presumed innocent until proven guilty" and "protect the vulnerable, quickly" are not enemies. A justice system worth trusting must deliver both. Nobody innocent should be ruined by an allegation alone, and no genuine victim should wander for years in search of justice.
This article is for education and analysis, not legal advice. For any real case, consult a qualified advocate. Figures come from NCRB data, the Rajya Sabha reply and media reports, and years differ across sources, so please check the latest NCRB report before quoting. Views expressed are the author's editorial perspective.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for messaging Aradhya Study Point.
We will reply as soon as possible.