Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

In 1989, the Government of India enacted the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in order to prevent atrocities against SC/STs. The purpose of the Act was to prevent attrocities and help in social inclusion of Dalits into the society, but the Act has failed to live up to its expectations.

Contents

[edit] Constitution of Special Court

Justice Ramaswamy observed in the case of State of Karnataka v. Ingale[1] that more than seventy-five percent of cases brought under the SC/ST Act end in acquittal at all levels. The situation has not improved much over the last decade. According to the figures given by the 2002 Annual Report dealing with SC/ST Act (of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment)[2] is supports this view. According to which of the total cases filed in 2002 only 21.72% of the total cases were disposed off and out of the disposed cases, a mere 2.31% ended up in conviction. The number of acquittals is 6 times more than the number of convictions and more than 70 percent cases are still pending.[3] When for nine people out of ten the judicial process is out of reach and the number of cases pending in the judiciary;[4] the framers SC/ST Act keeping mind this aspect (of the judicial process) provided for the setting up of Special Court for speedy trial of offence committed under this Act.[5] However they failed to give powers to such courts for the admission of complaints. This is quite evident from the provision relating to setting up of Special Courts gives which gives a false impression that a case of atrocity can be directly filed in Special Courts.[6] Though various State Governments have notified the Special Courts in accordance with the provision of the Act, but these courts cannot take cognizance of any complaint directly. The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Ashok v. State of AP[7], clarified that Special Courts can take cognizance of an offence only when a case is committed to it by a magistrate in accordance with provisions of Section 193 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). This means that a charge sheet cannot be directly filed before a Special Court. When a Session Court is constituted as a Special Court, it cannot take cognizance of an offence without such a case being committed to it by magistrate unless it is expressly provided so in the Act. Neither in the Cr.P.C. nor in the SC/ST Act there is any provision which grants the power to Special Court to take cognizance of the offences as an original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by a magistrate. Hence, it is mandatory to go through the course established under the Cr.P.C. Going through the normal judicial system is self degrading for any dalit. This is because of the still existing biases of the judges. A glaring example of the is the conduct of an Allahabad High Court judge who had his chambers "purified" with water from the ‘ganga jal’ because a dalit judge had previously sat in that chamber before him.[8] Another example is the case of State of Karnataka v. Ingale;[9] State of Karnataka had charged five individuals with violating the SC/ST Act. At trial, four witnesses testified that the defendants had threatened dalits with a gun in order to stop them from taking water from a well. The defendants told the dalits that they had no right to take water, because they were untouchables. The trial judge convicted all of the defendants. On appeal, the Additional Sessions judge confirmed the conviction of three defendants but acquitted two. On further appeal to the High Court, the judge acquitted all the defendants after rejecting the testimony of the four dalit witnesses. The dalits finally got relief from the Supreme Court. The legal regime confronts us with contradictions. While the legal text is explicit in seeking remedies, the implementation appears to evade performance. Laws and legal processes are not self executing; they depend on the players such as the administrative structure and its processes, the judiciary with the anticipation that the social attitudes are driven by the liberal notions of equity, social justice and fair play.[10] However, the responses of the players in the implementation of laws protecting the weak, the oppressed and the socially disadvantaged have over the years become increasingly indifferent. The injustices have been allowed to persist and the system has failed to provide for self-correction. What needs to be appreciated is that victims of attrocites suffer not only of bodily and mental pain but also imminent feeling of insecurity, which is not present in the victim of other crimes. On top of this if the judges show indifference towards them and shun them, it further aggravates their already vulnerable position.

[edit] Investigation

Section 23 of the Act, authorises the Central Government to frame rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act. If was drawing power from this section that the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 were framed. According to Rule 7(1)[11] investigation of offence committed under the SC/ST Act cannot be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). In regards to this various High Courts have vitiated the trail based on the above rule and, therefore set aside the order of conviction.[12] The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in D. Ramlinga Reddy v. State of AP,[13] took the position that provisions of Rule 7 are mandatory and held that investigation under the SC/St Act has to be carried out by only an officer not below the rank of DSP. An investigation carried out and charge sheet filed by an incompetent officer is liable to be quashed. Similarly, Madras High Court in M. Kathiresam v. State of Tamil Nadu[14] held that investigation conducted by an officer other than a DSP is improper and bad in law. Proceedings based on such an investigation are required to be quashed. The Courts without taking into consideration the inadequacies of the State, have been punishing SC/STs for the same. Shri Pravin Rashtrapal, Member of Parliament rightly pointed out that we do not have sufficient officers at that level.[15] His statement is supported by the Annul Report of 2005-2006 of Ministry of Home Affairs.[16] According to which out of the total posts sanction by the government under Indian Police Service (IPS) more than 15 percent of the posts are vacant. This basically means that there is one IPS officer of 77,000 SC/STs. Hence, there should be an amendment to this rule.

[edit] Rehabilitation

According to the preamble of the SC/ST Act, it is an Act to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against SC/STs, to provide for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences. The Madhya Pradesh High Court also had the same view and observed in the case of Dr. Ram Krishna Balothia v. Union of India[17] that the entire scheme of the SC/ST Act is to provide protection to the members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and to provide for Special Court and speedy trial of the offences. The Act contains affirmative measures to weed out the root cause of atrocities, which has denied SC/STs basic civil rights. The Act has addressed the problem the regarding the dispensation of justice, but what the failed to deal with is the problem of ‘rehabilitation’. There is mention of rehabilitation under Section 21(2)(iii), but there are no provision addressing the same. As it has been stated earlier that victims of atrocities are on a different level when compared to victims of other crimes, hence there should be special provision for the same. According to the report submitted by the National Commission for Review and Working of the Constitution[18] victims of atrocities and their families should be provided with full financial and any other support in order to make them economically self-reliant without their having to seek wage employment from their very oppressors or classes of oppressors. Also it would be the duty of the State to immediately take over the educational needs of the children of such victims and provide for the cost of their food and maintenance. SC/STs constitute 68 percent of the total rural population. According to the 1991 Agricultural census a large number of SC/STs are marginal farmers compared to the other sections of the society and because of this the number of cultivators are going down. In other words the landlessness is increasing at a faster rate among SC/STs. At the same time the number of SC/ST workers as agricultural labourer is increasing at a faster rate when compared to other sections of the society. This basically implies that after losing their land holdings SC/ST cultivators are becoming agriculture labourers. Loss of land, on the one hand, is caused by atrocities making the more vulnerable. This in turn fuels and promotes continuance of atrocities and untouchability. Marginalisation is one of the worst forms of oppression. It expelles a whole category of people from useful participation in the society and therefore potentially subjected to material depravation and this could even lead to extermination. Moreover, this leads to the state of powerlessness which perhaps is best described negatively; the powerless lack authority, status and a sense of self.[19] Moreover, every right has three types of duties:

  • Duties to avoid deprivation.
  • Duties to protect from deprivation
  • Duties to aid the deprived.

Though the SC/ST Act does cover the first two duties but totally ignores the third one; duty to aid the deprived. Hence, it is necessary to make the SC/STs self dependant.

[edit] Suggestions

A peep into the statement of object and reason of the SC/Sts Act clearly reveals that the Act, in its letter and spirit, desires that dalits lead a dignified life. However, even after 16 years of its existence in the statute book, it has not shown its desired affect. Majority of the beneficiaries of this Act are unaware of the legitimate claims of leading a dignified way of life or are unwilling to enforce it intensively. Even the Police, prosecutors and judicial officers are unaware of this Act; as was pointed out by Calcutta High Court in the case of M.C. Prasannan v. State of West Bengal.[20] What further aggravates the problem is the misapplication of the Act by police as well as by the courts which ultimately leads to acquittals.[21] Following are some of the atrocities that take place in rural areas but which are not covered under this Act: Social and Economic Boycott; and Social and Economic Blackmail. Moreover, In view of the fact that the main perpetrators of the crime sometimes co-opt a few SC/STs with them and take advantage of local differences among the SC/STs and sometimes they promote and engineer crimes but get them executed by some members of SC/STs, the Act should be suitably amended to bring such crimes and atrocities within the purview of the definition of atrocities under the Act.[22] Likewise, the Special Courts established under Section 14 of the Act are required to follow the committal procedure under Cr.P.C. Such an interpretation arrests the speedy trail envisaged under the Act. Further the absence of the adequate number of special courts has also resulted in slow disposal of atrocity and a huge back log. Lastly, the judicial perception regarding investigation being carried on by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police is bad in to the extent that it defeats the laudable spirit of the Act and because of this the SC/SCTs are suffering due to the inadequacies of the State. Therefore, in order instil confidence in SC/STs it is necessary to do away with the weaknesses and to implement it with new vigour and zeal.


[edit] External links

[edit] References

  1. ^ (1992) 3 S.C.R. 284
  2. ^ http://socialjustice.nic.in/schedule/welcome.htm Annual Report on The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for the Year 2002, at p.12. The report can be found at
  3. ^ http://www.censusindia.gov.in 2001 Census
  4. ^ Upendra Baxi, “Crisis of Indian Legal System”, Amita Dhanda (compiled by), “Law and Poverty Reading Material – B.A.B.L (Hons)”, 1st edition 2006, p.170.
  5. ^ Section 14.- For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act.
  6. ^ http://www.ncbc.nic.in National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes- Fourth Report 1996-97 & 1997-98, Vol. I.
  7. ^ AIR 2000 SC 740
  8. ^ http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/india Human Rights Watch, “Broken People: Caste Violence Against India's Untouchables"
  9. ^ (1992) 3 S.C.R. 284
  10. ^ K.I. Vibhute, “Right to Live with Human Dignity of Scheduled Castes and Tribes: Legislative Spirit and Social Response – Some Reflections”, 44 JILI (2002) 469 at 481.
  11. ^ 7(1).— An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government /Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time.
  12. ^ http://socialjustice.nic.in/schedule/welcome.htm In 2002 the conviction rate was a mere 2 percent. Report by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
  13. ^ 1999 Cr LJ 2918
  14. ^ 1999 Cr LJ 3938
  15. ^ Lok Sabha Debates, see http://164.100.24.208/ls/lsdeb/ls13/ses13/210803.htm
  16. ^ http://mha.nic.in/annual_reports.htm
  17. ^ AIR 1994 MP 143
  18. ^ http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b3-7.htm
  19. ^ Iris Young, “Justice and Politics of Difference”. Amita Dhanda (compiled by), “Law and Poverty Reading Material – IV Semester B.A.B.L (Hons)”, 1st edition 2006, p.29
  20. ^ 1999 Cr LJ 998 (Cal)
  21. ^ Karansingh v. State of MP, 1992 Cr LJ 3054 (MP)
  22. ^ http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b3-7.htm
Reservation in India
  Indian caste system | Scheduled Castes and Tribes | Other Backward Classes | Forward Castes   
  Mandal Commission | 2006 Anti-reservation protests | Youth for Equality | Reservation policy in IITs | Poona Pact  
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/h/Scheduled_Caste_and_Scheduled_Tribe_%28Prevention_of_Atrocities%29_Act%2C_1989_315e.html"
In other languages