It was common knowledge that the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was being abused. The Supreme Court had to take note of this glaring truth in a recent judgment. The court referred to the data supplied by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) highlighting the misuse of law and observed that in almost 15-16 per cent of the total complaints in 2015 under this Act were false and motivated. During the year, 75 per cent of the cases resulted in acquittal or withdrawal.
The Supreme Court has held that caste poses a serious threat to unity and integrity of the country and steps should be taken to achieve the Constitutional goal of a “casteless society” and prevent misuse of law resulting in spreading hatred on caste lines. A Bench consisting of Justices AK Goel and Uday Umesh lalit has said that any law should not result in caste hatred. The court also expressed its anxiety over the misuse of the Act resulting in filing of false cases and stoking caste conflict. “The under-privileged need to be protected against any atrocities to give effect to the Constitutional ideals. The Atrocities Act has been enacted with this objective. At the same time, the said Act cannot be converted into a charter for exploitation or oppression by any unscrupulous person or by police for extraneous reasons against other citizens as has been found on several occasions. Any harassment of an innocent citizen, irrespective of caste or religion, is against the guarantee of the Constitution. This court must enforce such a guarantee. law should not result in caste hatred,” the Bench said. “In the light of submissions made, it is necessary to express concern that working of the Atrocities Act should not result in perpetuating casteism which can have an adverse impact on integration of the society and the Constitutional values. Such concern has also been expressed by this court on several occasions. Secularism is a basic future of the Constitution. Irrespective of caste or religion, the Constitution guarantees equality in its preamble as well as other provisions including Articles 14-16. The Constitution envisages a cohesive, unified and casteless society,” the Bench further said.
This particular Act had prohibited grant of anticipatory bails in proceedings under the same. The Supreme Court has virtually rewritten the law to introduce the provisions of anticipatory bail. The court has also directed that there should be no automatic arrest; and preliminary inquiry must be conducted by police within seven days before taking any further action. There would not, therefore, be any misuse of the Act through automatic arrest on any and every complaint filed under the Act. Before taking any action, preliminary inquiry must be conducted by the police within seven days.
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court further said that working of the SC/ST Act “should not result in perpetuating casteism which can have an adverse impact on integration of society and Constitutional values. In view of acknowledged abuse of law of arrest in cases under the Act, arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by the SSP which may be granted in appropriate cases if considered necessary for reasons recorded. Such reasons must be scrutinized by the magistrate.”
This is not the first time the Supreme Court is dealing with a penal provision and prescribing for built-in precautions to prevent its abuse. The dowry provisions of the IPC in Section 498-A, especially in the realm of its implementation, has received very critical comments from the court. In the Arnesh Kumar case, the court has laid down the precautions so as not to have the dowry prevention provisions in the law to be sources of abuse of power and for settling of personal vendetta. The apex court elaborately dealt with the abuse of the power of arrest and laid down mandatory precautions so that an arrest is avoidable, especially when parties are cooperating in investigation.
The ruling over the misuse of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has attracted opposition and criticism from political parties led by the Indian National Congress. The apprehensions are obviously based not on the contents of the judgments but on imaginary apprehensions. It has not been appreciated that the stringent provisions of the Act, which even denies anticipatory bail, has been misused on several occasions and has attracted judicial notice. The NCRB has made reports regarding large quantum of false cases and the acquittal and the withdrawal of a majority of rest of the cases. The apex court observed the ground reality of the administration of the Act and rightly issued directives in doing “complete justice”. Instead of appreciating reformatory measures in furtherance of the fundamental rights of equality and justice, wild condemnation is not expected from responsible quarters.
Vagaries of maladministration of criminal law have been scrutinised by the Supreme Court in this latest case. It is desirable that the youths, who are the dominant section of our society, read and digest this judgment to know how pervert and cruel our society can be and how arrogance and arbitrariness and personal bias can totally cloud the realm of reasonableness and fair play. Suggestions have been held out seeking a review of the judgment. There is a legal forum available to those who may be very gravely aggrieved by the judgment. But what fails one’s imagination is the logic which leads to the conclusion that this is a call for end of “reservations”. Informed and responsible criticism is always welcome, but baseless and wild allegations against the judgment of the highest court are unfortunate and avoidable. let the Parliament debate the pros and cons and reform the law by rewriting it so as to ensure that it is not amenable to abuse. That is the challenge before the legislators. Political parties have their vital role to play in this sphere. In their debate, all sections must participate. The effect is pervading; and none of us can be spared. This concerns us all!
(The writer, a Senior Advocate, is a former All India Service officer, a former diplomat, a former editor, a former President of Orissa High Court Bar Association and a former Advocate General of Odisha.
(jayantdas@hotmail.com)