<p class="title">The Supreme Court on Tuesday fixed the matter related to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018, for detailed hearing on March 26, 27 and 28.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The amendment, brought in after furore, in a way "neutralised" the effect of a top court judgement of March 20, 2018 which diluted the law meant to protect the members of the "oppressed community".</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Justices U U Lalit and Indu Malhotra determined the schedule of the hearing on a batch of petitions, including the Union government's review petition, against the judgement.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court had earlier refused to consider a plea for staying the operation of the amendment.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Notably, Justice A K Goel, who authored the judgement in the bench comprising Justice U U Lalit, had already superannuated. The court's judgement bringing inthe provision of anticipatory bail and mandating a preliminary inquiry before the arrest of a person accused of an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was criticised by political parties and social groups.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Union Government, subsequently, passed an amendment to the law restoring the stringent provisions in the 1989 law.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Prathvi Raj Chauhan and others challenged the validity of the amendment.</p>
<p class="title">The Supreme Court on Tuesday fixed the matter related to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018, for detailed hearing on March 26, 27 and 28.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The amendment, brought in after furore, in a way "neutralised" the effect of a top court judgement of March 20, 2018 which diluted the law meant to protect the members of the "oppressed community".</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Justices U U Lalit and Indu Malhotra determined the schedule of the hearing on a batch of petitions, including the Union government's review petition, against the judgement.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court had earlier refused to consider a plea for staying the operation of the amendment.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Notably, Justice A K Goel, who authored the judgement in the bench comprising Justice U U Lalit, had already superannuated. The court's judgement bringing inthe provision of anticipatory bail and mandating a preliminary inquiry before the arrest of a person accused of an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was criticised by political parties and social groups.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Union Government, subsequently, passed an amendment to the law restoring the stringent provisions in the 1989 law.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Prathvi Raj Chauhan and others challenged the validity of the amendment.</p>
