NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court turned down again on Thursday to stay its most heated March 20 ruling, which diluting the provision of mandatory arrest under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, putting aside the Centre’s charge that the decision marked an intrusion into the sphere of the legislature and amend of the law.

Attorney general K K Venugopal stated the verdict was such that he was forced to use callous words and protested in opposition to the “tampering” of the constitutional scheme of separation of powers.

On a related note the bench, however, remained impassive and unmoved. The next hearing and arguments will continue on May 16.

Asserting in a strong pitch, Venugopal said, “Our Constitution provides for separation of power between legislature, executive and judiciary. But the SC, in this case, stepped into the legislative domain by introducing a preliminary enquiry when the law mandated registration of FIR and providing for anticipatory bail which was absent in the act. In addition, the bench provided that if the DSP registered an FIR without conducting a preliminary enquiry, then s/he could be liable for contempt.”

"The judgment has completely shaken the country. Rightly or wrongly, people are so agitated that it led to eight deaths. Those who have been oppressed for thousands of years have a feeling that dilution of the arrest provision in the SC/ST Act amounted to protecting the accused.”

Though, a bench of Justices Adarsh K Goel and U U Lalit contested the proposal that through their March 20 ruling, they had took apart the law which was conceived as a curb against atrocities on SC/STs.