SC declines to stay anti-atrocities act
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the operation of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, which Parliament had passed last session after the court struck down stringent provisions on arrest and bail. However, the court asked the Centre to explain why it should not be struck down again.
The principal secretary at the Prime Minister’s Office will have to explain the reasons for the amended law and why it should not be struck down.
The top court was acting on a PIL, which claimed the law had been brought in with mala fide intent with an eye on garnering votes from members of the SC-ST communities by unravelling the court order that said arrests should be made only after a preliminary inquiry showed it was a genuine case. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud is considering the case.
The earlier verdict was given by a bench comprising now-retired justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday Lalit. It had created a mechanism to check if a complaint lodged under the atrocities prevention Act was false before the accused was arrested.
The ruling was met with violent protests by SC-ST activists. The Centre then brought an amendment Act, doing away with the mechanism and restoring the earlier position, even as a review petition was pending in the court.
The PIL argued that the Act which has been passed in both Houses also took away the right of the accused to get anticipatory bail even in case of a patently false claim of harassment.
“It is pertinent to mention here that, in both the Houses of Parliament, this amendment was passed by the voice vote, without any discussion or debate,” the PIL said.
The principal secretary at the Prime Minister’s Office will have to explain the reasons for the amended law and why it should not be struck down.
The top court was acting on a PIL, which claimed the law had been brought in with mala fide intent with an eye on garnering votes from members of the SC-ST communities by unravelling the court order that said arrests should be made only after a preliminary inquiry showed it was a genuine case. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud is considering the case.
The earlier verdict was given by a bench comprising now-retired justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday Lalit. It had created a mechanism to check if a complaint lodged under the atrocities prevention Act was false before the accused was arrested.
The ruling was met with violent protests by SC-ST activists. The Centre then brought an amendment Act, doing away with the mechanism and restoring the earlier position, even as a review petition was pending in the court.
The PIL argued that the Act which has been passed in both Houses also took away the right of the accused to get anticipatory bail even in case of a patently false claim of harassment.
“It is pertinent to mention here that, in both the Houses of Parliament, this amendment was passed by the voice vote, without any discussion or debate,” the PIL said.