This article is written by Diksha Paliwal, a student of LLM (Constitutional Law). The article focuses on the important aspects of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, along with simultaneously discussing relevant case laws. It further provides insights on the recourse available to those who have been falsely accused under the offences of the SC ST Act. It also deals with the issue of misuse of the Act and the punishment provided under the law for the same. 

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Table of Contents

Introduction 

The notion of the caste system has been a part of Indian civilisation since an early age. It has hounded the people belonging to the backward sections of society for a long time now. However, the supreme law of our country, i.e., the Constitution of India in Part XVI, provides for the provisions for the welfare and protection of the people belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and other backward classes. These provisions constitute an important part of the laws enacted for the protection of the marginalised communities of Indian society. The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1989), is one more such step that has been taken with a view of providing social justice to the people belonging to these backward classes (SC and ST). 

Download Now

However, over the past few years, it has been observed that certain people have been found misusing these provisions, which were otherwise enacted for their welfare and protection. People are often falsely accused under the offences of the Act of 1989. In such a case, it becomes crucial for the law enforcement agencies to come up with relevant measures and safeguards to prevent the misuse of this Act. 

The present blog discusses in detail the important provisions of the Act, along with important case laws wherein the issue of misuse of the Act has been addressed time and again.

What is the SC ST Act all about

The Act of 1989 was enacted to curb the ills of the caste system that have plagued Indian society for ages. The intention of the legislature was to ward off the atrocities that the people belonging to SC and STs suffer. It also aims to increase the active participation and inclusion of the SC and STs in society.

The Act aims to protect the backward segments of society, mainly SC and ST, thereby safeguarding these sects from the atrocities they suffer. The objective is to prevent the offences committed by other segments of society against these tribes. It provides specially designed courts that are exclusively established to try such offences that have been committed against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act under Section 21 even provides for rehabilitation and other necessary reliefs for the victims of such offences. 

The improvement of the social and economic conditions of these segments became utterly important for the overall advancement and progress of the country as a whole. These vulnerable sections of the society were the targets of the upper caste members of the society for hundreds of years and were facing inhumane treatments. The Act was thus enacted to prevent such humiliations, atrocities, and unjust behaviour and to punish the offenders who are behind these inhumane acts. Torturing certain segments of the society just because they belong to a particular community of a higher class is entirely wrong, and this Act, with the objective of saving these vulnerable people, was enacted on 11.09.1989. It has been amended several times since then so as to accommodate changing social conditions. The Act introduces preventive and punitive measures to shield the victims belonging to the SC and ST tribes. It pursues to check and deter the crimes committed by the non SC-STs against the SC and STs. 

The inadequacy of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the other then existing laws led to the enactment of the Act of 1989.

Purpose of SC ST Act

Several instances of caste-based oppression have been witnessed in India. These people from backward communities, also called “Dalits,” are treated as untouchables and face strong discrimination due to the caste they belong to. In order to prevent the atrocities that people in these communities suffer, the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was enacted. The preamble of the Act itself states that the purpose of its enactment is to prohibit crimes and atrocities against the SC and ST. The parliament was of the view that the then existing laws like the IPC, the Civil Rights Act, 1955, etc., were not sufficient to check and deter crimes against SCs and STs, and hence a need to enact a new law for the protection and safeguarding the interests of these people was felt. It aims to provide justice to the lower caste and seeks to abolish the ill practices of untouchability. 

The Allahabad High   in the case of Mangal Prasad v. Vth Additional District Judge (1992), opined that the SC ST Act is primarily enacted to make the Dalits an integral part of society and to provide them with better opportunities, along with ensuring social, economic, and political rights to them.

Important provisions under the Act 

The Act deals with the penal provisions that have not been dealt with in the Indian Penal Code 1860, the Civil Rights Act 1955, and many other existing laws. It also provides for severe punishments for the offences committed against the most vulnerable sections of society, with the view that stringent punishment will help eradicate and curb the atrocities that these sections face. 

The SC ST Act provides protection to these people and covers various atrocities like exploitation, malicious prosecution, assault, infringement of their social and political rights, and all such offences that are committed by a non SC-ST person against the SC and STs. It further provides for monetary damages, rehabilitation, and other reliefs to the victims. The Act provides for the establishment of special courts that try the offences under this Act, along with authorities for ensuring the safety of and other regular checks on these communities. 

Let’s discuss some important provisions of the Act. 

  • Section 2 of the Act deals with various definitions, namely, atrocity, code, meaning of scheduled caste and scheduled tribes, special courts, and special public prosecutor. The clause (2) of the Section further talks about a situation wherein any reference made in this Act is not in force in any particular area, then in such a case, the corresponding law of that reference shall be in force. 
  • Section 3 of the Act provides for punishment of various offences that constitute atrocity against the SC STs, like, a non SC-ST person forcefully making a member of SC-ST tribe drink or eat any harmful substance, or insulting of a SC-ST member, or causing or intent to cause injury, etc. The maximum sentence in certain cases may extend up to seven years or in certain cases up to 5 years, as provided under the different clauses and sub clauses of Section 3.
  • Section 4 of the Act provides for the punishment to the public servant, who willfully or knowingly neglects his duties that he or she is required to perform as per the provisions of this Act. The minimum period of punishment is 6 months which may extend up to one year.
  • Further the Act also provides for punishment in case of subsequent conviction, which shall not be less than one year, but which can extend up to the punishment provided for that particular offence. This is enumerated under Section 5 of the Act. Apart from this, the Act also provides the special court the power to order forfeiture of the property in certain offences, as prescribed under Section 7 of the Act. 
  • It also provides for conferring the power of a police officer to any government official by way of publishing a gazetted notification, if the state governments find it necessary to do so, in the interest of justice. The power is conferred under Section 9 of the Act.
  • The special court under Section 10 has the power to remove any person out of the limits of a particular area, if on receiving a complaint or otherwise the court believes that the person might commit any offence under this Act. Also, Section 11 provides for the custody or arrest of such person who has not complied with the directions provided under Section 10 of the Act. It further provides that the special court can permit the person temporarily removed to return back to that area. 
  • The Act under Section 15 provides for the appointment of a special public prosecutor for the purpose of conducting the cases in the court. 

Recent amendments 

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Amendment Rules, 2016 

These Amendment Rules were enacted to ensure speedy justice to the victims of atrocities, to cater strong attention towards the women victims, and to ensure a proper relief mechanism for the victims of caste-based oppression. The rules provided for the filing of the chargesheet and the completion of the investigation within sixty days in court. It also provided provisions for relief for rape victims. The amendment largely focused on several relief provisions providing for the victims in different situations. It also provided for regular reviews of schemes for rights and entitlements of the SC and STs. 

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018

This Amendment Act of 2018 was mainly introduced to nullify the effect of the 2018 Mahajan case judgement pronounced by the Apex Court. The amendment Act states that no preliminary inquiry is necessary before the registration of an FIR for the offences under the Act of 1989. It further states that no prior permission from the Superintendent of Police is required before making an arrest under this Act. It also states that the person accused under this Act will not be entitled to any anticipatory bail. 

Misuse of the SC ST Act and its consequences 

The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was enacted to prevent and curb the atrocities that these vulnerable segments of society face due to the oppressive caste system followed in our country. Sadly, the data from the past few years shows that this Act is being used as a tool to harass people or gain ulterior motives. According to a survey conducted in the year 2016, it was found that a total of 11060 cases were investigated under this Act, out of which 5347 were false. Even the courts of the country have raised concern over this issue of misuse of the Act in a number of cases.

Even though there is no express provision provided under the law for a person who has been a prey to the misuse of the SC ST Act for certain ulterior motives, there are certain legal actions that a person who has been falsely accused under the Act can seek from the judiciary.  A person can knock on the doors of the high courts and the Supreme Court by way of filing a writ petition and by contending that his right to life and liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has been infringed. Initially, the jurisdiction of a writ petition could have only been invoked against the state or its instruments, however, after the case of Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP (2016), the Supreme Court has now held that  Articles 19 and 21 can be invoked against private persons also. 

Also, the person who has been falsely accused can file a counter-complaint against the member of the SC-ST who falsely accused him or her. Even though the Act does not mention the provision of anticipatory bail in offences under the SC ST Act, the High Courts and Supreme Court have, in some recent judgements, granted anticipatory bail to the accused in false SC-ST cases. 

A person who has been falsely accused can also take recourse by taking shelter under the provision of defamation provided in the Indian Penal Code by stating that he or she is being defamed by the other person who has falsely accused him of the offences under the SC ST Act. The next section of the Act discusses this remedy in detail. 

X v. State of Kerala and Anr. (2022)

Facts of the case

In the present case, an appeal was filed in the Kerala High Court, challenging the dismissal of pre-arrest bail by the special judge. The accusation against the accused was that he called the complainant by her caste name. The complainant belonged to the scheduled caste community, and he was called so by the accused at the time when the complainant came to Valappad Service Co-operative Bank to remit the interest of the bank loan availed by him. The complainant stated that he was abused by the accused (non SC-ST) by calling the complainant by his caste name within public view, who is an employee of the Valappad bank. The accused was booked under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989. 

Issues of the case

Whether any case under the SC ST Act is made out or not. Also, should the accused be granted bail?

Judgement and observations

The Kerala High Court stated that it is necessary to look into the facts to see whether any chances of false implications are there or not. It was further observed that, where the complainant and accused were previously on bitter terms or had a litigation history, the same can be a valid reason to prima facie doubt the case of the complainant. The Court also addressed the issue of false cases and misuse of the anti-atrocity laws and stated that it is really shocking and disheartening to look at the present situation, in which innocent people are becoming the victims of such false cases. The Kerala High Court further granted pre-arrest bail to the accused after imposing certain conditions, thereby setting aside the impugned order.

Jawed Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022) 

Facts of the case

In the present case, the accused was charged with the offences under Sections 294, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s), and 3 (2) (va) of the Act of 1989. The complainant in the present case stated that he is the panchayat secretary and the accused is the up-sarpanch. It was contended by the complainant that he was abused in filthy language by the accused and was also threatened by the accused. However, it was contended by the appellant that he was falsely implicated by the complainant due to some other matter of embezzlement of funds. 

Issue involved

Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the accused or not, after proper consideration of the facts of the case.

Judgement and observation

The Chhattisgarh High Court, while granting bail to the accused, held that the courts have the power to grant bail when it appears that the offences that are alleged to have been committed are sheer misuse of the law.

How to counter fake cases of atrocity

The courts of India have judicially addressed the issue of misuse of the anti-atrocity laws in several instances. People tend to use it as a tool to fulfil their ulterior motives, like blackmailing and settling disputes, be they monetary or any other kind of political disputes, etc. As rightly pointed out by the Apex Court in the Mahajan case that “it may be noticed that by way of rampant misuse with oblique motive for satisfaction of vested interests.” The Parliament, on the other hand, has explicitly denied coming up with any safeguarding measures or provisions to prevent this misuse. The parliament states that it will destroy the very essence of the Act for which it has been enacted. However, the misuse of the law that is going on cannot be ignored. It is necessary that certain stringent laws be enacted to prevent this misuse. A provision for a proper preliminary inquiry can be set up in order to curb this issue. Also, the provision of anticipatory bail must be made mandatory, just like the Mahajan judgement did. However, this was later reversed. It must be made sure that the Act does not become a tool for exploitation of the image of the non SC-STs. Proper guidelines for the arrest of the accused should also be put forth to prevent the arrests of innocent people. 

Recourse under Section 499 and 500 of IPC 

Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code enunciates the provision of defamation. In simple language, the term “defamation” connotes harming the reputation of one person or the intention of harming the reputation of one person by way of any derogatory or false words, actions, signs, gestures, etc. However, while charging someone for the offence of defamation, it is important that the person who has done any defamatory action have the knowledge that the act committed by him or her will ruin the reputation of the concerned person. The intention of ruining the reputation of a person is an essential component. 

The punishment for the offence of defamation is provided under Section 500 of the IPC. It provides for simple imprisonment of the accused for a period which may extend up to two years, or a fine, or both.

This provision can be used as a recourse by the people who have been falsely accused or who are being threatened that a fake atrocity case will be filed against them. The Indian law currently does not have any specific provision to stop or curb the misuse of the anti atrocities law, however, these two provisions of the Indian Penal Code can be used by the victims who fell prey to false cases because of the illicit or ulterior motives of the members of the SC ST tribe.

Judicial pronouncements 

Surendra Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa & Anr. (2022)

Facts of the case 

In the present case, the accused is charged with the offences under Sections 294, 323 and 506 IPC, besides Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. The incident is said to have been committed while labour work was going on at the place of the incident. It was contended that the petitioner abused the informant, who lodged the FIR. The informant stated that he was abused by the petitioner on account of noise that was caused while working at the site and said that the petitioner assaulted the informant by abusing him and also using his caste name, followed by assaulting him with a stick. The learned special judge dismissed the plea of the petitioner, thereby denying the quashing of the FIR. However, it was contended by the petitioner that even though, for the sake of argument, it is considered that the petitioner used the complainant’s caste name, his intention was not to insult him on the basis of his caste, and hence no offence under the SC ST Act is made out. 

Issue involved

Whether any case under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 is made out or not.

Judgement and observation

The Orissa High Court held that Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 would not be attracted merely because the victim’s caste name was said by the accused, it is essential that the utterance must have been done with the intention to insult, intimidate, or humiliate him just because he or she belongs to the SC ST community. The plea of the petitioner was allowed as far as charges under the Act of 1989 were concerned. The Court further stated that the petitioner abused the informant suddenly in anger and not because he belonged to a particular community.

Suresh Ram Vishvakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023)

Facts of the case

In the present case, the accused appellant committed sexual intercourse with the minor victim without her consent. Based on this incident, an FIR was lodged against the accused by the mother of the victim. Later on, the victim was medically examined, and the report confirmed that she had been sexually assaulted. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed by the police. The trial, after recording the evidence, convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC (unamended) and Section 6 read with Section 5 (i/k/m) of the POCSO Act. Being aggrieved by this, the appellant moved to the High Court.

Issue involved

The issue before the court was to decide whether the trial court framed the charges correctly or not. 

Judgement and observation

The High Court of Chhattisgarh held that merely on the ground that the victim belongs to the SC ST community, it could not be said that the accused forced her against her will to sexually exploit the victim, an act that is otherwise punishable under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Act of 1989. By stating this observation, the division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court, while setting aside the order of the lower court, stated that the prosecution has vaguely formed the charges against the accused. 

The court, however, stated that the lower court had rightly convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC (unamended) and Section 6 read with Section 5 (i/k/m) of the POCSO Act, but it further stated that opting for severity of sentence is not the only way to ensure that justice is being served, and consequently dropped the charges under the Act of 1989.

Siji V Sivaram v. State of Kerala (2023)

Facts of the case

In the present case, the petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala, requesting for the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 14(A) of the Act of 1989, which was earlier dismissed by the lower court. The accused in the present case has been charged under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 308, 379, 427, and 506 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC ST Act.

Issue involved

The issue before the court was to decide whether, after the dismissal of anticipatory bail under the Act of 1989 by the special court, the accused could apply for a fresh bail application. Provided a confirmation of dismissal of the said appeal has been done by the High Court through a properly instituted appeal. Put simply, the court had to decide on the maintainability of the fresh bail application after the above-stated dismissal of the appeal. 

Judgement and observation

The High Court of Kerala, while dismissing the application of the accused, said that such a petition is not maintainable and the only recourse now available to the accused is to move an application before the Supreme Court. Thus, the court held that the accused, under the SC ST Act, cannot directly approach the High Court for the grant of anticipatory bail or regular bail.

Dr. Shubhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and ors. (2018) (reversed)

Facts of the case

This appeal was filed by the present appellant in the Apex Court, aggrieved by the decision of the Bombay High Court. The accused in the present case was charged under  Sections 3(1)(ix), 3(2)(vi), and 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Atrocities Act), along with Sections 182, 192, 193, 203, and 219 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused was employed as the director of the Technical Education Department in Maharashtra. The complainant was also working under the same department at a lower post. The complainant in the FIR alleged that the accused did not have the power to grant/refuse certain sanctions that were given to the complainant by the accused and one other person.

Issue involved

Whether there can be procedural safeguards to prevent the misuse of the SC ST Act and to make sure that they are not abused for extraneous considerations.

Judgement and observation

The Apex Court while granting bail to the accused laid down certain conditions to prevent the misuse of the anti atrocities law, which are;

  1. No such bar exists on granting anticipatory bail to the accused if the court prima facie finds that no case is made out or if any malafide intentions are noticed by the court.
  2. In order to avoid false cases, a preliminary inquiry can be conducted by the DSP, so as to find out whether the allegations are true or frivolous.
  3. In a situation where it is evident that there is some misuse or abuse of the law, arrest in such a case should be conducted after the approval of an appointing authority in the case of a public servant. In case where the arrest is of a non-public servant, it shall be after the approval of SSP.
  4. Non-compliance of the above guidelines shall be treated as contempt. 

Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union Of India & Others (2020)

Facts of the case

This petition was filed by the petitioner, in which he challenged the validity of Section 18 A of the SC ST Act. This Section was inserted after the 2018 Mahajan judgement was delivered by the Apex Court. After this judgement, widespread protests were witnessed in all parts of the country by the adivasis and other marginalised community members. Apart from this, it was also contended by the legislature and certain law researchers that these safeguards will hinder the effectiveness of the anti atrocities laws. The 2018 judgement was given in light of the increasing misuse of the SC ST Act. However, the parliament, in order to nullify the effect of the 2018 judgement, came up with the amendment bill in 2018, whereby Section 18 A was inserted in the Act of 1989. 

Issue involved

  1. Whether the amendment of 2018 is constitutionally valid or not.
  2. Whether the grant of anticipatory bail under the offences of SC ST Act are legally valid. 
  3. Whether the directions issued in the Mahajan case are constitutionally valid or not.

Judgement and observation

A three-judge Bench of the Apex Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 2018 amendment. The Court further distinguished from the opinion that was led down in the Mahajan case, and stated that these guidelines unnecessarily put pressure on the SC ST people. 

Conclusion 

The SC/ST Act was enacted to protect the interests of the marginalised community and to safeguard them from the atrocities that they face because of the prevalent caste oppressive system in India. However, over the past few years, the statistics show that there has been a large increase in the lodging of false cases and accusing innocent persons of fulfilling the ulterior motives of the informant or complainant. Presently, we do not have any stringent laws to prevent the misuse of the anti-atrocity laws since the parliament feels that the SC ST Act has been enacted to prevent the grave injustice and humiliation caused to the vulnerable sections of society and that enacting such preventive provisions would hinder the fulfilment of the SC/ST Act. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

Whether mention of the victim’s caste is an offence under Section 3 of the SC ST Act, unless any such caste-based insult is intended?

The Karnataka High Court, in the case of Shailesh Kumar v. And State of Karnataka (2023), held that a person cannot be convicted under the offence mentioned in Section 3 if he says the name of the victim’s caste unless the accused had any such intention to insult or humiliate the victim because he belonged to a certain community. 

Does making a sound of whistling in one’s own house will constitute an offence under SC ST Act?

In the case of Yogesh Laxman Pandav and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2023), the Bombay High Court held that a person cannot be booked for the offence of sexual intent under the Act of 1989 if he is making the sound of whistling in his own house. 

Do the 2018 amendment in the SC ST Act and the judgement that was delivered in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union Of India & Others (2020)- both serve the same purpose?

Yes, the amendment of 2018 practically reversed the judgement of Dr. Subhash Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018), and the same was done by the 2020 judgement in the Prathvi Raj Chouhan case. 

References 

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here