No stay, but SC to rethink Dalit order

In the face of nationwide protests by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the Centre on Tuesday got an out-of-turn open court hearing on its review petition in the Supreme Court but failed to get any relief as the judges declined to stay or even temporarily suspend its March 20 decision.

The apex court said, “We are not against (the SC/ST) Act but the innocent should not be punished.”

By this decision, the court held that prior to lodging a complaint under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, it will be mandatory for the police to conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether a case on merits is made out. Once a case is lodged, prior to arresting an accused, if it is a public servant sanction has to be taken from the appointing authority and in case of a non-public servant, a senior level police official (of the rank of SSP) will examine if the arrest is necessary.

Appearing before a Bench of Justices Adarsh K Goel and UU Lalit, which passed the order, Attorney General KK Venugopal argued for close to two hours to make out a case for recall of the judgment. According to him, the court added provisions to the law passed by Parliament and this in effect diluted the purpose of protecting SC/ST victims who have long been afflicted with torture. He pointed out that the court approached the matter with a view that the Act is being misused by persons from SC/ST community who resort to lodging false complaints.

The new mechanism introduced by the court, he added, even held up payment of compensation to SC/ST victims that is required to be immediately released upon filing of FIR. Additionally, he submitted that confusion prevailed as to whether in cases where offences under other Acts such as Indian Penal Code are clubbed with offences under the 1989 Act, the preliminary enquiry will hold up registration of associated criminal offences as well. The Bench did not pass a final order as the Maharashtra Government along with other parties in the original case sought time to file their submissions.

In response, the Bench said that its judgment neither was against the SC/ST community nor does it dilute the provisions of the Act. “People who are agitating may have not even read our order,” the judges remarked, adding that it was not averse to the rights of the underprivileged which stands on a higher footing.

At the same time, it said, liberty of innocent citizens cannot be taken away without any independent enquiry. This becomes more crucial as the Act prohibits grant of anticipatory bail to an accused.

On the aspect of misuse of the Act, amicus curiae Amarendra Saran said that the Centre cannot deny misuse of the Act as in the earlier round, it be produced a Parliamentary Standing Committee showing how the law was being misused leading to issuance of advisories to States and UTs. Even the Bench told the A-G that abuse may not be by SC/ST members but may be by police or some vested interests.

The Bench said, “There should not be any terror in society against cases taken up under this Act. In cases where there is verifiable material or a grievous offence of against SC/ST, preliminary enquiry may not be necessary but where verification is not possible, an individual’s liberty cannot be curtailed without enquiry and our order provides an outer limit of one week for such enquiry. We are not against Act but an innocent should not be punished.”