The Centre on Monday sought review of the March 20 Supreme Court decision that paved the way for anticipatory bail to offenders under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and introduced safeguards in an attempt to weed out frivolous and false complaints at the threshold of filing a complaint.
Incidentally, a PIl filed by All India Federation of SC/ST Organisations was mentioned before a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra. The Court refused urgent hearing on the issue and directed listing of the case in due course. However, Centre’s review petition will be taken up in chambers by the bench of Justices Adarsh K Goel and UU lalit, which passed the order on March 20.
The Centre in its review petition sought recall of the decision pointing out “errors apparent on the face of the record”. It said that Section 18 of the 1989 Act preventing an accused from getting anticipatory bail is the “backbone of the Act” as it acted as “an inherent deterrence” and instilled sense of protection among members of SCs/STs.
Although Court had relied on National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) to show dismal conviction rate of 24.9 per cent among the total cases lodged in 2016, the Centre replied that low conviction rate was not on account of frivolous charges but due to other factors including witnesses and complainants turning hostile, lack of proper presentation of case by prosecutor, lack of corroborative evidence.
The review petition termed the added safeguards introduced by the Court order was essentially a legislative exercise that will “dilute” the very purpose of the Act that seeks protection of SCs/STs. “The 1989 Act is a complete code in itself. It deserves a strict implementation in order to give effect to its stated objective of protecting the SCs and STs from caste-based subjugation and discrimination,” stated the petition, drawn by advocate Nalin Kohli and settled by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Maninder Singh.
The additional safeguards introduced by the Court required DSP level officer to prima facie enquire whether a case for filing of complaint was made out. Upon filing of FIR, no public servant could be arrested without permission from the appointing authority. Similarly if the complaint concerned a non-public servant, similar permission would be required from a Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) level officer. This report will then be filed before the concerned Magistrate who will consider it for deciding whether the accused has to be remanded further.
The Centre claimed such a method was impractical as states do not have sufficient number of DSP level officers. Moreover, a previous decision of SC makes it mandatory for a preliminary probe in cases falling under 1989 Act that will act as a sufficient procedural check to filter frivolous complaints. Moreover, the potential to misuse provisions of the Act do not find concurrence with the Parliament's recently enacted amendments to the 1989 Act in 2016 that introduced stringent provisions after careful examination of the working of the Act.