Bharat’s legal systems have long cherished the principle that one is “innocent until proven guilty.” Yet, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, drafted and enforced by Bharatiya lawmakers, has revealed troubling patterns where this bedrock of jurisprudence is compromised. Not British colonizers, but modern Bharatiya governments responsible for these laws, have created a system where the presumption of innocence is often set aside—leaving many susceptible to harm, harassment, and unjust punishment.

Judicial Testimonies: A Chronicle of Misuse

A compilation of over 30 judicial rulings between 2018 and 2025 paints a stark portrait of how the SC/ST Act has been weaponized for personal vendetta, extortion, and intimidation, with courts frequently decrying the act’s misuse. In October 2025, for instance, a woman in Uttar Pradesh was sentenced to jail for fabricating allegations under the Act simply to exact personal revenge. Her conviction came alongside the court’s explicit warning that compensation under the SC/ST Act should not be automatically granted on the basis of a mere FIR but must follow substantial evidence and investigation.​

Similarly, an advocate in Lucknow orchestrated multiple false cases under the Act to target rivals, meriting a life sentence for conspiracy and abuse of legal processes—highlighting how far the misuse can go to destroy reputations and lives.​

Innocence Trampled: When Due Process Fails

Perhaps the most damning evidence of this breach of jurisprudence is the heartbreaking case of Vishnu Tiwari, sentenced to life imprisonment under the SC/ST Act despite a lack of serious charges. After spending 20 years in jail, the Allahabad High Court ordered his release, expressing sadness and disappointment that the presumption of innocence had been ignored, and due process sacrificed at the altar of a poorly administered statute.​

Other high courts, from Karnataka to Gujarat and Rajasthan, have similarly quashed dozens of cases where disputes originated from business differences, property feuds, or private quarrels, yet escalated to criminal proceedings under the SC/ST Act simply for strategic advantage. The courts have lamented that these cases clog the judicial system, consume precious resources, and most importantly, gravely violate the rights of many accused who are later pronounced innocent.​

The Mechanism of Intimidation

Repeatedly, the judiciary has noted how threats of false complaints under the SC/ST Act are used to intimidate lawyers, public officials, and ordinary citizens. One Gram Pradhan was fined and sternly warned by the Allahabad High Court after threatening to implicate an advocate under the Act for merely pursuing a land dispute case. The Supreme Court has even remarked that the law has become “an instrument to blackmail innocent citizens and public servants,” directing that arrests of public servants require written permission to guard against arbitrary and vengeful prosecution.​

Compensation and the Credibility Crisis

Many judgments spotlight how compensation under the Act is sought not by true victims but as a ploy by complainants, often without any conviction or substantive evidence. The Allahabad High Court found victims admitting to filing false FIRs under village pressure, resulting in court orders to return wrongly acquired compensation, and stern recommendations for checking credibility before lodging complaints.​

Not a Colonial Legacy—But a Modern Bharatiya Problem

What sets this crisis apart is its origin: the SC/ST Act is entirely the product of Bharatiya legislators, not colonial rulers. The ideological drive behind such laws was noble—to protect vulnerable communities from genuine social atrocities and discrimination. However, the practical enactment and administration of these laws often subvert the ideals they were meant to uphold. Courts across the country now bear witness to an epidemic where the principle of “innocence until proven guilty” is routinely flouted, not by foreign-imposed systems, but by statutes crafted within democratic Bharat itself.​

Conclusion: A Call for Reform

The wave of false cases, blackmail threats, ruined reputations, and wrongful imprisonment documented by the judiciary compels urgent reflection. Protecting marginalized groups is a societal imperative, but laws must respect due process and the presumption of innocence. The experience of hundreds who have suffered under the misuse of the SC/ST Act proves that no legal tool should override foundational principles of fairness and justice. Reform is not just needed—it is morally obligatory to preserve both protection for the vulnerable and the rights of all citizens against abuse of law.

Source: 31 Judicial Rulings on Misuse of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (2018-2025)