Supreme Court: Section 18 of SC-ST Act Cannot Be Applied Mechanically to Deny Bail

Q4: Which Supreme Court judges heard the May 2026 case?
A: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan.

Q5: What did the September 2025 bench say?
A: A three-judge bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai reaffirmed the bar under Section 18 but allowed a narrow exception when no prima facie offence under Section 3 of the Act exists.

Q6: What happened in the November 2025 case?
A: The Court granted anticipatory bail because the alleged slur was “bastard”, which is not a caste-based abuse.

Q7: What is Section 3 of the SC/ST Act?
A: It lists the specific offences of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Q8: When was the SC/ST Act enacted?
A: In 1989.

Exam-Focused Points

• SC/ST Act enacted:  1989

• Section 18 of SC/ST Act:  Bars anticipatory bail (Section 438 CrPC) when the Act is prima facie attracted

• Section 438 CrPC:  Deals with anticipatory bail (pre-arrest remedy)

• May 2026 ruling:  Section 18 cannot be applied mechanically; judges must examine FIR, supporting material, and nature of allegations

• Bench in May 2026:  Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan

• Prima facie scrutiny:  Required before refusing pre-arrest bail

• September 2025 ruling (CJI B.R. Gavai, Justices K. Vinod Chandran, N.V. Anjaria):

  • Reaffirmed Section 18 bar

  • Narrow exception when FIR does not disclose prima facie offence under Section 3

• March 2026 ruling (Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran):  Set aside High Court order granting anticipatory bail in a serious SC/ST Act case

• February 2026 ruling (Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta):  Cancelled bail granted by Bombay High Court in murder + SC/ST Act case

• 3 November 2025 ruling (Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria):  Granted anticipatory bail because alleged slur “bastard” was not caste-based

• Section 3 of SC/ST Act:  Lists specific atrocity offences