A sound review (The Hindu)

Mains Paper 2: Polity
Prelims level: SC/ST POA law
Mains level: Rights of the vulnerable sections

Context

•  A three judge bench of the Supreme Court has decided to review the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act following the last year judgement which was seen as a dilution of the law.
•  The March 2018 decision laid down three new rules as safeguards against the Act’s possible misuse:
•  The bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 need not prevent courts from granting advance bail.
•  A person can be arrested only if the “appointing authority” (in the case of a public servant) or the SP (in the case of others) approves such arrest.
•  There should be a preliminary enquiry into all complaints.

Why were the provisions diluted?

•  Justice Goel had observed that “interpretation of Atrocities Act should promote constitutional values of fraternity and integration of the society. This may require ‘check on false implication of innocent citizens on caste lines’.”

The spirit of the SC/ST POA law:

•  Article 15 of the constitution - (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
•  (5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30]
  The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2018
•  Section 18A has been inserted to nullify conduct of a preliminary enquiry before registration of an FIR, or to seek approval of any authority prior to arrest of an accused, and to restore the provisions of Section 18 of the Act.
•  Section 18A, inserted in the Act, states that:- (1) For the purpose of the PoA Act,- (a) Preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of a First Information Report against any person; or (b) The investigating officer shall not require approval for arrest, if necessary, of any person, against whom an accusation of having committed an offence under the PoA Act has been made and no procedure other than provided under the PoA Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall apply.
   The provision of section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under the Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court.

Background:

•  The directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in their judgment dated 20.03.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2018 Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another) amount to amending the PoA Act and have diluted the provisions of the PoA Act.

Directions of the Supreme Court:

•  To conduct a preliminary inquiry within seven days by the Dy. S.P. concerned to find out whether the allegations make out a case under the PoA Act and that arrest in appropriate cases may be made only after approval by the S.S.P., would delay registration of First Information Report (FIR) and will impede strict enforcement of the provision of the POA Act.
•  Delay in registration of FIR would result in delay in payment of admissible relief amount to the victims of atrocities admissible only on registration of FIR.

Criticism of the judgment:

•  It would adversely affect the very objective of the Act to prevent commission of atrocities against members of SC and ST and be severely detrimental especially in heinous offences like sexual exploitation of SC/ST women including rape, gang rape, acid attacks and murder etc.
•  Special laws for the protection of SC and ST communities flow from social realities, the discrimination they still face and the circumstances that restrict them from mustering the courage to lodge a complaint in the first place.
•  The additional “safeguards” against the alleged abuse of law by Dalit is another form of discrimination.
•  It rejects the idea of treating Dalit as people prone to lodging false complaints.
•  The directions for getting an authority’s sanction for arrest or holding a preliminary enquiry for this class of cases alone are extra-statutory.

Conclusion

•  Therefore debate hovers around discrimination and equality from two contrasting angles of protection against discrimination and protective discrimination as a tool for inequality.
•  It is also perceived as a case of judicial overreach.

  Online Coaching for UPSC PRE Exam

  General Studies Pre. Cum Mains Study Materials

Prelims Questions:

Q.1) Consider the following statements with reference to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

(1) The IPCC was set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
(2) IPCC conducts its own scientific research to find scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: A
Mains Questions:
Q.1) Why were the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2018 provisions diluted?