The Supreme Court has refused to keep its March 20 ruling in abeyance, clarifying that it didn’t in any manner dilute the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The bench said it only implemented Section 41 of the CrPC that permits police in specific cases to arrest without any warrant from a court. “We did not dilute the SC/ST Act . We implemented Section 41, CrPC.”“This law does not have an anticipatory bail provision. Our approach was that no innocent should land behind the bar. FIR can be registered and the accused arrested any time within a week after a preliminary enquiry,” justices AK Goel and UU Lalit said.The bench said: “Those agitating haven’t read our order or are being misled by vested interests.” It said the ruling would not come in the way of granting immediate compensation to victims under the Act. Police could also lodge FIRs and arrest accused in connected offences under other acts such as the IPC, the bench clarified.An enquiry would only be necessary in cases involving the SC/ST Act since there was no anticipatory bail provision under the Act, the bench said. “Article 21 (right to life and liberty) has to be read into every law,” the bench added.The bench had given its ruling in a case from Maharashtra in which a government servant was charged under the Act after he refused to sanction prosecution of two junior education department officials on a similar complaint.The court had then recorded that the law was being misused for political reasons and by vested interests and hedged in the powers of police to arrest the accused by creating an additional safeguard — a public servant could be arrested under written order of a competent authority by reasoned order of a senior police officer after an inquiry.The judgement did not go down well with the Dalits who went on the rampage, prompting the government to rush to the court for a review citing law and order problems.Attorney General KK Venugopal on Tuesday argued ruling was based on a faulty premise that the Act was misused.He then tried to argue that data showed less convictions and acquittals.A joint parliamentary committee had, in fact, in a report said the law was being misused, the judges who had earlier also put in similar safeguards in case of Section 498A (antidowry), IPC, noted.“We did not amend the SC/ST Act, we implemented a procedural law,” the bench said. The court asked the Maharashtra government and the affected education department official to file their written submissions on the plea by the government to review its order.