Supreme Court Ruling on the SC/ST

Context:

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a crucial decision concerning the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, focusing on whether verbal insults or intimidations against individuals from Scheduled Castes (SC) or Scheduled Tribes (ST) are inherently considered offenses under the Act. This judgment was particularly relevant in a case involving anticipatory bail for a YouTube channel editor accused under this legislation.

Relevance:

GS II: Government Policies and Interventions

Dimensions of the Article:

1. Supreme Court Ruling on Insults Under SC/ST Act, 1989
2. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
3. Recent Amendments to Enhance Protections
4. Challenges associated with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Supreme Court Ruling on Insults Under SC/ST Act, 1989:

Background: The case involved allegations against a YouTuber who made derogatory remarks about an MLA belonging to the Scheduled Caste community.

Legal Interpretation:

• Scope of the Act: The Supreme Court clarified that not all insults or intimidations against SCs or STs constitute offenses under the Act. For the Act to be applicable, the derogatory act must be directly connected to the victim’s caste identity.
• Intent Requirement: The Court emphasized that mere knowledge of the victim’s SC/ST status is insufficient. The offensive act must be intended to humiliate the victim specifically because of their caste.
• Legal Precedent on Bail: Section 18 of the Act restricts anticipatory bail but does not outright prevent it. The Court can grant bail after a preliminary inquiry establishes that the allegations likely do not meet the Act’s criteria for constituting an offense.

Court’s Decision:

• Preliminary Inquiry: The Court mandated a preliminary inquiry to assess whether the allegations genuinely meet the legal criteria for an offense under the Act.
• Anticipatory Bail: Anticipatory bail was granted to the YouTuber, with the Court finding insufficient evidence at the preliminary stage that the remarks were intended to humiliate the MLA based on caste.
• Conclusion on Intent: It was determined that the remarks did not show an intent to insult based on the MLA’s caste, thus not meeting the stringent requirements of the Act for escalating to an offense.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:

• The Act was enacted to protect Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from caste-based discrimination and violence, reinforcing the provisions of Articles 15 and 17 of the Indian Constitution.
• The legislation builds upon earlier laws like the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, aimed at abolishing untouchability and discrimination based on caste.

Key Provisions of the Act:

• Defined Offenses: The Act categorizes acts of physical violence, harassment, and social discrimination against SC/ST individuals as “atrocities,” subject to stringent legal penalties.
• Legal Framework:
  • The Central Government crafts the implementing rules, while State Governments and Union Territories provide local enforcement.
  • Special courts and SC/ST Protection Cells, led by senior police officers, are established for efficient case handling and trials.
  • Investigations must be led by officers at least at the Deputy Superintendent level and completed swiftly within a set timeframe.

Legal Protections and Bail Conditions:

• Anticipatory Bail Restrictions: Section 18 bars the application of anticipatory bail for accused under this Act, as outlined in Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Victim Support and Rehabilitation:

• The Act includes provisions for the relief and rehabilitation of victims, offering financial compensation, legal aid, and other support services.

Recent Amendments to Enhance Protections:

• 2015 Amendment: Introduced tougher provisions and broadened the definition of offenses to include actions like garlanding with footwear, forced manual scavenging, social or economic boycotts, and other forms of ostracism.
• Offenses Added:
  • Sexual exploitation and unauthorized physical contact with SC/ST women.
  • Outlawing traditional practices such as dedicating SC/ST women as devadasis.
• Public Accountability: Imposes penalties on public servants who fail to perform their duties in protecting SC/ST rights.
• 2018 Amendment: Simplified the arrest process by removing the requirement for Senior Superintendent approval before detaining an accused.

Scope Limitation:

• Intra-community Offenses: The Act does not address offenses committed within the SC/ST communities against each other.

Challenges associated with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:

Resource Limitations:

• These courts often struggle with insufficient resources and infrastructure, affecting their functionality and efficiency.
• There is a notable backlog and slow processing of atrocity cases, which can extend beyond the intended scope of the SC/ST Act.

Victim Support and Rehabilitation:

• The Act provides limited and unclear details on the rehabilitation of victims, primarily focusing on social and economic support without concrete measures.
• Victims often encounter physical, psychological, and social challenges. There is a crucial need for more detailed and comprehensive rehabilitation strategies to aid victims towards economic self-sufficiency.

Awareness and Training:

• Both beneficiaries, including victims and law enforcement personnel, frequently lack sufficient understanding of the Act’s specific provisions.

Legal and Misuse Concerns:

• The Act includes provisions for warrantless arrests and non-bailable offenses, which have occasionally led to misuse.
• The broad and stringent nature of the law has led to concerns about false accusations and harassment, particularly impacting individuals from non-SC/ST backgrounds.

Coverage of Offenses:

• Certain crimes that lead to atrocities, such as blackmailing among SC/ST communities, are not explicitly addressed within the Act.
• The current definition of atrocities may not fully cover all forms of abuse experienced by SCs and STs, suggesting a need for legislative amendments to include a broader array of crimes.

-Source: The Hindu