A petitioner argued that the 2018 amendment (which bars anticipatory bail and removes prior approval for arrest) is being misused, citing individual cases of wrongful detention. The Court’s response? ‘One bad case doesn’t break a law.’ The 2018 amendment re-instated stricter provisions after a 2018 Supreme Court ruling had briefly diluted them. In 2020, a 3-judge bench upheld the amendment, citing safeguards; and now, the Court has reaffirmed that stance. Individual injustices, however tragic, can’t override legislative intent, especially when courts already have tools to quash false FIRs or grant bail if no prima facie case exists. What’s often missed? The law isn’t absolute. Courts can still grant relief; bail or quash FIRs; if a case doesn’t meet the threshold. And even under Section 18A, the Arnesh Kumar safeguards (notice before arrest) still apply, now codified under Section 35 of the BNSS. The Court also brushed off claims that compensation funds ‘incentivise’ false cases; calling it ‘cruel’ to suggest so. This isn’t about ignoring misuse; it’s about respecting the balance: protecting vulnerable communities from atrocities while preserving judicial oversight to fix wrongful applications. The law stands. The safeguards remain. And the Court’s message is clear; fix the case, not the statute.