Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Supreme Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra reported as [2018] 4 SCR 877, while dealing with the 1989 Act issued guidelines inter alia viz.- (iii) in view of acknowledged abuse of law of arrest under the 1989 Act, arrest of public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority and in case of non-public servant after approval by the S.S.P; (iv) preliminary inquiry by Dy.S.P to find out whether allegations make out a case under the 1989 Act and that the same are not frivolous/motivated – Review of – Held: As the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have suffered for long; protective discrimination has been envisaged u/Art.15 and the 1989 Act to make them equals – Offences under the 1989 Act are cognizable – Impugned directions put riders on the right to arrest – It is not open to the legislature to put members of SCs and STs in disadvantageous position vis-à-vis others and in particular to socalled upper castes/general category –What legislature cannot do legitimately, cannot be done by the interpretative process by the courts – For lodging false report, the caste of person is not the cause – It is due to the human failing and not due to the caste factor – There may be certain false cases and that can be ground for interference by the Court u/s.482, CrPC, but the law cannot be changed due to such misuse –More than 47,000 cases were registered in 2016 under the 1989 Act –Number is alarming, and it cannot be said that it is due to the misuse of the Act – To say that report lodged by an SC/ST would be registered only after preliminary investigation by Dy. S.P, whereas under Cr.PC a complaint lodged relating to cognizable offence has to be registered forthwith, would mean that report by upper-caste has to be registered immediately and arrest be made forthwith and thus, would be opposed to the protective discrimination meted out to the members of the SCs and STs as envisaged u/Arts.15, 17 & 21– Guidelines (iii), (iv) appear to have been issued in view of the provisions of s.18, 1989 Act, whereas adequate safeguards have been provided by purposive interpretation by Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. R.K. Balothia [1995] 1 SCR 897 – Permission of the appointing authority to arrest public servant is not at all statutorily envisaged and amounts to mandate having legislative colour which is a field not earmarked for the Courts – If at the threshold, approval of appointing authority is made necessary for arrest, the very purpose of the Act is likely to be frustrated – Various complications may arise– Further, in case of non-public servant requiring the approval of SSP for the arrest of accused could not have been made sine qua non, as it may delay the matter – As the approval of arrest by appointing authority/S.S.P. have not been approved, the direction to record reasons and scrutiny by Magistrate consequently stands nullified – Direction nos.(iii), (iv) issued by Supreme Court recalled – Consequently, direction no.(v) also vanishes –Constitution of India– Arts.15, 17, 21 and 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –ss. 2(c), 41, 197, 438 & 482– Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 – r.7(2) – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Rules, 2016. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 –s.18 – Held: Provision of s.18 cannot be said to be violative of Art.21 – Constitution of India – Art.21. Constitution of India – Art.142 – Exercise of powers under – Impugned guidelines/directions issued by the Supreme Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra reported as [2018] 4 SCR 877, inter alia directing that under the 1989 Act, arrest of public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority; in case of non-public servant after approval by the S.S.P and also for a preliminary inquiry by Dy.S.P to find out whether allegations make out a case under the Act and that the same are not frivolous/ motivated – Held: Directions encroach upon the field reserved for the legislature and are against the concept of protective discrimination in favour of down-trodden classes u/Art.15(4) and also impermissible within the parameters laid down by Supreme Court for exercise of powers u/Art.142 – Impugned directions recalled – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Judicial Review – Scope of and issuance of guidelines – Discussed.