The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that its recent judgment inserting safeguards in the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has “diluted” the law as no police officer will now take cognisance of any complaint filed by a member of the SC/ST community.
The Centre in its written submissions filed in court sought the recall of the March 20 judgment and said that by legislating upon such a “sensitive” issue, the court had transgressed into Parliament’s domain. The Centre also said the prevailing anger and unease among the SC/ST community had created a sense of disharmony in society.
“The case dealing with an issue of very sensitive nature has caused a lot of commotion in the country and is also creating anger, unease and a sense of disharmony,” the Centre said.
The statements formed part of the written submissions filed by Attorney General KK Venugopal ahead of the hearing of the Centre’s review petition. On the earlier date, the Bench of Justices Adarsh K Goel and UU lalit had refused to stay its judgment but allowed the Centre to file its submissions.
In a hard-hitting criticism of the SC order, the A-G said that the verdict in essence compelled the authorities to act contrary to the provisions of the Atrocities Act and the Criminal Procedure Code.
Attacking the logic given by the two-judge Bench that the courts can legislate where no law exists, the Centre’s submissions said that such a bland statement was wholly fallacious as the executive, judiciary and legislature live under a written Constitution where separation of powers forms part of its basic structure which is inviolable.
Referring to the judgement that required police officers to seek sanction from appointing authority or SSP before arresting a public servant or non-public servant as the case may be, the Centre said that on the pretext of filling gaps in law for protecting innocent persons against frivolous cases, the court through judicial legislation amended the Atrocities Act and CrPC thereby defeating the salutary provisions of the Act.
Again on Section 18 of the Act that refused anticipatory bail to an accused, the court’s direction which said that such a provision will apply only where a genuine case is made out was held to fall foul of a 1995 decision of the apex court which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 18 of the Act.
Even the direction by the court asking the DSP to enquire whether or not to file an FIR contradicted an earlier Constitution Bench decision that makes registration of FIR compulsory for cognisable offences. “This judgement has diluted for the reasons stated, the provisions of the Atrocities Act read with the CrPC, resulting in great damage to the country. It is essential that the conclusions drawn be reviewed and recalled.”