It was enacted when the provisions of the existing laws (such as the
Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 and Indian Penal Code) were found to
be inadequate to check these crimes (defined as ‘atrocities’ in the
Act).^[1]
Recognising the continuing gross indignities and offences against
Scheduled Castes and Tribes, the Parliament passed the ‘Scheduled Castes
and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

The preamble of the Act also states that the Act is:

“to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against
the members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, to provide for Special
Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and
rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.”

Thus objectives of the Act clearly emphasise the intention of the
government to deliver justice to these communities through proactive
efforts to enable them to live in society with dignity and self-esteem
and without fear or violence or suppression from the dominant castes.
The practice of untouchability, in its overt and covert form was made a
cognizable and non compoundable offence, and strict punishment is
provided for any such offence.

The SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with
stringent provisions was enacted on 9 September 1989. Section 23(1) of
the Act authorises the Central Government to frame rules for carrying
out the purpose of the Act. Drawing power from this section, the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules of 1995 were framed.^[2] The rules for the Act were notified on 31 March 1995.

The purpose of the Act was to help the social inclusion of Dalits
into Indian society, but the Act has failed to live up to its
expectations admitted by the Union Minister for Home Affairs in
parliament on 30 August 2010 (quoted below).^[3].

A number of cases of misuse of this Act has been reported from
different parts of the country as mentioned in the Supreme Court verdict
of 20 March 2018. In this verdict, the Supreme Court of India banned
immediate arrest of a person accused of insulting or injuring a
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe member to protect innocents from
arbitrary arrest.

In August, 2018, the parliament of India passed the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill,
2018, to bypass the ruling of the Supreme Court of India laying down
procedures for arrests under the Act. The bill inserts section 18A (1)
(a) in the 1989 Act, that says a “preliminary enquiry shall not be
required for registration of an FIR against any person.” The Bill also
inserts Section 18A (1) (b), which says “the investigating officer shall
not require approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any person
against whom an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act
has been made and no procedure, other than that provided under this Act
or the Code, shall apply.”
The act violates “basic principles of liberty and accountability” after
the amendments. According to a plea filed in the Supreme Court, “the
Supreme Court cannot remain a mute spectator to the abuse of law as we
are living in a civilised society and there were many growing instances
of misuse of this act. The new law could be used to harass citizens by
arresting them on the basis of mere allegations. The amendment excludes
Section 438 of CrPC, violates constitutional mandate under Articles 14
and 21.” The amendments rule out any provision for anticipatory bail for
a person accused of atrocities against SC/STs, notwithstanding any
court order.

Historical sketch

The
post-Independence era was marked by frequent instances of atrocities
springing up across the country: for example, the assassination of the
young, educated Dalit leader Emmanuel Sekaran in Tamil Nadu for defying
the untouchability-based interdicts on Scheduled Castes (SCs, also
called Dalits), which resulted in the Ramanathapuram riots of 1957; the
Kilavenmani massacre of 42 Dalits in 1968 in Tamil Nadu; the gruesome
killing of Dalit Kotesu in Kanchikacherla in 1969 in Andhra Pradesh; the
killings of 10 Scheduled Tribes (STs, also called Adivasis, literally
‘first dweller’) by police in connection with a land dispute in
Indravalli in Andhra Pradesh in 1978. All such events shook the then
national leadership. Hence, under pressure from Dalit MPs, the
Government of India started monitoring atrocities against SCs from 1974,
and in the case of STs from 1981 onwards, with special focus on murder,
rape, arson and grievous hurt.

Atrocities continued to rise with ferocity and frequency – for
example, in Bihar the massacres of SCs at Belchi in 1979 and at Pipra in
1980; in Uttar Pradesh the massacre following a SC bridegroom riding on
horseback at Kafalta in 1980; in Madhya Pradesh the killing of Bacchdas
in Mandsaur district in 1982; in Bihar the killing in police firing on
15 STs at Banjhi in Sahibganj district in 1985. In all such cases, the
Indian State at both the national and state levels avoided addressing
basic contradictions, vulnerabilities and causative factors; the
treatment was mainly symptomatic and palliative instead of the required
radical solutions. Under continued pressure from Dalit MPs and political
leaders, the magnitude and gravity of the problem was finally
recognised by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. In his Independence Address
on 15 August 1987, he announced that an Act would be passed, if
necessary, to check atrocities.^[4]

Necessity

Atrocities rooted in caste system

A study conducted by the National Commission for SCs and STs in 1990 on Atrocities on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes: Causes and Remedies
pointed out various causal factors for atrocities: land disputes; land
alienation; bonded labour; indebtedness; non-payment of minimum wages;
caste prejudice and practice of untouchability; political factions on
caste lines; refusal to perform traditional works such as digging burial
pits, arranging cremations, removing carcasses of dead animals and
beating drums; etc. The deep root for such atrocities is traceable to
the caste system, which “encompasses a complete ordering of social
groups on the basis of the so-called ritual purity. A person is
considered a member of the caste into which s/he is born and remains
within that caste until death….”^[5]

Considered ritually impure, SCs have been physically and socially
excluded from mainstream society, denied basic resources and services,
and discriminated against in all areas of life. Accordingly, they face
various forms of exploitation, insults and violence, as well as
degrading practices of untouchability. The Scheduled Tribes were equally
exploited on grounds of not falling within the caste system but having a
distinct culture and worldview of their own. “Women belonging to these
castes and tribes bore double burden. They were exploited by caste and
gender, and were vulnerable and powerless against sexual exploitation.”^[6]

Continuing widespread prevalence

Despite
the right to non-discrimination on the basis of race or caste enshrined
in Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, discrimination against SCs
and STs is pervasive. Though abolished and forbidden by Article 17, the
practice of ‘untouchability’ persists due to its systemic character.
Hence, the Indian Parliament enacted the Untouchability Offences Act
1955, which underwent amendment and renaming in 1976 to become the
Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act. Under this Act, ‘untouchability’
as a result of religious and social disabilities was made punishable.
However, due to legal loopholes, the levels of punishments being less
punitive as compared to those of the IPC, and the law and order
machinery being neither professionally trained nor socially inclined to
implement such social legislation, a more comprehensive and more
punitive Act was required to protect SCs and STs from violence committed
by other communities. This gave rise to the SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989.

Objectives

The
basic objective and purpose of this more comprehensive and more
punitive piece of legislation was sharply enunciated when the Bill was
introduced in the Lok Sabha:

Despite various measures to improve the socio-economic conditions of
the SCs and STs, they remain vulnerable… They have in several brutal
incidents, been deprived of their life and property… Because of the
awareness created… through spread of education, etc., when they assert
their rights and resist practices of untouchability against them or
demand statutory minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced
labour, the vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them.
When the SCs and STs try to preserve their self-respect or honour of
their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty…

Under the circumstances, the existing laws like the Protection of
Civil Rights Act 1955 and the normal provisions of the Indian Penal
Code have been found to be inadequate to check and deter crimes against
them committed by non-SCs and non-STs… It is considered necessary that
not only the term ‘atrocity’ should be defined, but also stringent
measures should be introduced to provide for higher punishment for
committing such atrocities. It is also proposed to enjoin on the States
and Union Territories to take specific preventive and punitive measures
to protect SCs and STs from being victimized and, where atrocities are
committed, to provide adequate relief and assistance to rehabilitate
them.^[7]

The objectives of the Act, therefore, very clearly emphasise the
intention of the Indian state to deliver justice to SC/ST communities
through affirmative action in order to enable them to live in society
with dignity and self-esteem and without fear, violence or suppression
from the dominant castes.^[8]

The Supreme Court of India too reiterated the significance and importance of the Act:^[9]

Salient features

The
provisions of SC/ST Act and Rules can be divided into three different
categories, covering a variety of issues related to atrocities against
SC/ST people and their position in society.

• The first category contains provisions of criminal law. It
  establishes criminal liability for a number of specifically defined
  atrocities, and extends the scope of certain categories of penalizations
  given in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The second category contains provisions for relief and compensation for victims of atrocities.
• The third category contains provisions that establish special authorities for the implementation and monitoring of the Act.

The salient features of the Act are

1. Creation of new types of offences not in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or in the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 (PCRA).
2. Commission of offences only by specified persons (atrocities can be
   committed only by non-SCs and non-STs on members of the SC or ST
   communities. Crimes among SCs and STs or between STs and SCs do not come
   under the purview of this Act).
3. Defines various types of atrocities against SCs/STs (Section 3(1)i to xv and 3(2)i to vii).
4. Prescribes stringent punishment for such atrocities (Section 3(1)i to xv and 3(2)i to vii).
5. Enhanced punishment for some offences (Section 3(2)i to vii, 5).
6. Enhanced minimum punishment for public servants (Section 3(2)vii).
7. Punishment for neglect of duties by a public servant(Section 4).
8. Attachment and forfeiture of property (Section 7).
9. Externment of potential offenders (Section 10(1), 10(3), 10(3)).
10. Creation of Special Courts (Section 14).
11. Appointment of Special Public Prosecutors (Section 15).
12. Empowers the government to impose collective fines (Section 16).
13. Cancellation of arms licences in the areas identified where an
    atrocity may take place or has taken place (Rule 3iii) and seize all
    illegal fire arms (Rule 3iv).
14. Grant arms licences to SCs and STs (Rule 3v).
15. Denial of anticipatory bail (Section 18).
16. Denial of probation to convict (Section 19).
17. Provides compensation, relief and rehabilitation for victims of
    atrocities or their legal heirs (Section 17(3), 21(2)iii, Rule 11,
    12(4)).
18. Identification of atrocity prone areas (Section 17(1), 21(2)vii, Rule 3(1)).
19. Setting up deterrents to avoid committing of atrocities on the SCs amongst others (Rule 3i to 3xi).
20. Setting up a mandatory, periodic monitoring system at different levels (Section 21(2)v):

• District level (Rule 3xi, 4(2), 4(4), 17).
• State level (8xi, 14, 16, 18).
• National level (Section 21(2), 21(3), 21(4)).

Together with the rules, it provides a framework for monitoring the
state response to the atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. According to the Act and Rules, there are to be monthly reports
(from the District Magistrates), quarterly review meetings at the
district level by the District Monitoring and Vigilance Committee (DVMC)
and half yearly reviews by a 25-member State Monitoring and Vigilance
Committee (SVMC) the chaired by the Chief Minister. The performance of
every Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) will also have to be reviewed by
the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) every quarter. Annual reports
have to be sent to the central government by 31 March every year.

The Act and Rules are a potent mechanism and precision
instruments that can be used in tandem with the Right To Information
(RTI) Act 2005 to motivate the state to hold the mandatory meetings and
enforce compliance. A Human Rights Defenders Monitoring Calendar has been developed from the Act and rules to help human rights defenders, and others to clarify the functions and duties of the monitoring authorities (the SVMC and DVMC).

Defining ‘atrocity’

The
term ‘atrocity’ was not defined until this Act was passed by the
Parliament in 1989. In legal parlance, the Act understands the term to
mean an offence punishable under sections 3(1) and 3(2).

In specific terms:

1. Atrocity is “an expression commonly used to refer to crimes against Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in India”.
2. It “denotes the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane, whereas the term ‘crime’ relates to an act punishable by law”.^[10]
3. It implies “any offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) committed
   against SCs by non-SC persons, or against STs by non-ST persons. Caste
   consideration as a motive is not necessary to make such an offence in
   case of atrocity”.^[11]
4. It signifies “crimes which have ingredients of infliction of
   suffering in one form or the other that should be included for
   reporting”. This is based on the assumption that “where the victims of
   crime are members of Scheduled Castes and the offenders do not belong to
   Scheduled Castes caste considerations are really the root cause of the
   crime, even though caste considerations may not be the vivid and minimum
   motive for the crime”.^[12]

The Act lists 22 offences relating to various patterns of behaviours
inflicting criminal offences for shattering the self-respect and esteem
of SCs and STs, denial of economic, democratic and social rights,
discrimination, exploitation and abuse of the legal process, etc.^[13]

Section 3 of the Act lists the criminal offences and the punishments. It contains:

• 19 offences in their own right (Section 3(1) contains 15
  subsections with an equal number of offences. Section 3(2) contains four
  subsections with offences)
• two derived offences (sections 3(2)(vi) and 3(2)(vii)). The derived
  offences are based on the offences given in the SC/ST Act. They only
  come in the picture provided that another offence under the SC/ST Act
  has been committed.
• one subsection that increases the punishment for certain offences under the IPC (Section 3(2)(v)).

These protections can be broadly divided into protection from

• social disabilities (denial of access to certain places and to
  use customary passage and to get water from any spring, reservoir or any
  other source).
• personal atrocities (forceful drinking or eating of inedible or
  obnoxious substance, against stripping, outrage of modesty, sexual
  exploitation, injury or annoyance).
• atrocities affecting properties (land, residential premises, existing properties).
• malicious prosecution.
• political disabilities.
• economic exploitation.

The common denominator of the offences is that criminal liability can
only be established if the offence is committed by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe against a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

Special Courts

For
speedy trial, Section 14 of the Act provides for a Court of Session to
be a Special Court to try offences under this Act in each district. Rule
13(i) mandates that the judge in a special court be sensitive with
right aptitude and understanding of the problems of the SCs and STs.

However, that is seldom the case. Most states have declared a
court as a ’special court’. The hitch is that they are designated courts
(as opposed to exclusive special courts) and so have to hear many other
cases too. Consequently, at any time about 80% of the cases are pending^[14]—defeating the very purpose of having special courts in the first place.

Special Court Justice Ramaswamy observed in the case of State of Karnataka v. Ingale^[15]
that more than seventy-five percent of the cases brought under the
SC/ST Act end in acquittal at all levels. The situation has not improved
much since 1992 according to the figures given by the 2002 Annual
Report dealing with SC/ST Act (of the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment)^[16]
Of the total cases filed in 2002 only 21.72% were disposed of, and, of
those, a mere 2.31% ended in conviction. The number of acquittals is 6
times more than the number of convictions and more than 70 percent of
the cases are still pending.^[17]

Inaugurating a two-day annual conference of State Ministers of
Welfare/Social Justice, 8 Sept 2009, Prime Minister Singh expressed
’shock’ that the conviction rate of cases of atrocities against the
SC/STs is less than 30% against the average of 42% for all cognisable
offences under the Indian Penal Code.^[18]

And in rape cases the conviction rate is just 2%.^[19]

Karnataka has only eight Special courts, though 15 of 30
districts are declared ‘atrocity prone’. Overall conviction rates remain
at or below 5%. Even the few special courts seem to be biased. In 2010,
of the 101 cases disposed of in the Tumkur special court, not one was
convicted. Gulbarga, another atrocity prone district had a conviction
rate of just 2%. 7 districts had a conviction rate of 0% in 2010.^[20]

Investigation

According to Rule 7(1)^[21]
investigation of an offence committed under the SC/ST Act cannot be
investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent
of Police (DSP).

Various High Courts have set aside cases based on the above rule. ^[16]
The rule is to ensure that the investigations are of high quality, and
the assumption is that senior officials would not be as biased, nor as
vulnerable to other pressures, as those in the lower rungs of the police
force.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in D. Ramlinga Reddy v. State of AP,^[22]
took the position that provisions of Rule 7 are mandatory and held that
investigation under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) 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 more than likely to be quashed. Similarly, the Madras High
Court in M. Kathiresam v. State of Tamil Nadu^[23]
held that investigation conducted by an officer other than a DSP is
improper and bad in law and 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 (the victims) for the same. Shri
Pravin Rashtrapal, Member of Parliament rightly pointed out that there
are insufficient officers at that level.^[24] His statement is supported by the Annual Report of 2005-2006 of Ministry of Home Affairs.^[25]
Of the total posts sanctioned 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 for 77,000 SC/STs.

In the case of Karnataka, there were no officers of the required
rank in three districts, as admitted by the government at the State
Vigilance and Monitoring Committee (SVMC) in September 2010.^[26]
Though officers of higher rank can conduct the investigation (the Act
only says ‘at least of rank’), in practice they seldom do.

Compensation

Atrocities
often take place when persons belonging to the SC ST community do not
fulfill their ‘caste functions’ by doing ritually prescribed ‘unclean’
work or break the caste boundaries such as sitting in the bus or wearing
a turban—often the preserve of the dominant castes. Atrocities are
often a form of ‘collective’ punishment for daring to have even some
semblance of non-dependence which is termed as ‘prosperous’, and the
atrocity is to bring them back into the situation of total dependence
and servitude. The state therefore has the duty to help the community
back on its feet.

In fact, a part of the reason why atrocities are committed is
economic activity. In my experience, I have seen that in some areas, the
Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe person is prosperous. My
knowledge is mostly about the Scheduled Caste, not about the Scheduled
Tribe. It is because of the economic activity, because of the
enterprise, there are areas where the Scheduled Caste people have also
become prosperous. The Scheduled Caste people are able to build brick
and stone houses. The Scheduled Caste people are able to acquire
vehicles. The Scheduled Caste people are able to dress better, send
their children to better schools. One of the reasons why atrocities take
place in those places is to cripple them economically. Every riot,
every arson case cripples them economically. Therefore, it is important
that the State must immediately rush in social and economic measures for
the rehabilitation of those who have suffered through these atrocities.^[27]

The government has prescribed a schedule for compensation^[28] under Rule 12.(4)) as Annexure 1 entitled Norms for Relief Amount. This is periodically updated

Record

As
‘police’ and ‘public order’ are state subjects, primary responsibility
for prevention of atrocities and maintenance of law and order rests with
the State Governments. A responsive police administration has always
been recognized as an essential requirement in any society that seeks to
take care of its citizens. Such responsive administration is essential
for prevention of atrocities likely to be inflicted upon SCs and STs by
unscrupulous non-SC/ST elements.

Section 21(1) and (2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 stipulate that the
State Government shall take all such measures as may be necessary for
its effective implementation. However, despite the Act and Rules, the
situation has not changed much. The incidence of atrocities is actually
increasing, and the implementation of the law leaves much to be desired
as this statement of the Union Minister for Home Affairs shows:

“Madam, I must concede that the statistics do not reflect any decline
in the atrocities. On the contrary, the information compiled by the
Crime Records Bureau shows that the number of cases registered of
atrocities against the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is, in
fact, on the rise. I have the numbers from 2006 to 2008, subsequent
years are being compiled. Take for example the case of the Scheduled
Castes. The number of cases of atrocities against the Scheduled Castes
registered in 2006 was 26,665. That itself is an understatement. Many of
the cases are simply not registered. In 2007, it was 29,825 and in 2008
it was 33,365. So, this clearly shows the rise in trend.

I can make one or two deductions from this.

1. Firstly that there is no let up in the atrocities committed on the Scheduled Castes.
2. The other inference one can make is, perhaps, because of the
   pressure that is put on the State Governments by the Central Government,
   by public opinion and by NGOs, now the States are showing greater
   willingness to deal with the problem. Therefore, more cases are being
   registered.

[…]

We cannot be happy about the fact that approximately 33,000 cases are
being registered as atrocities against Scheduled Castes in one year.
What makes it even more disturbing is that while so many cases are
registered, the conviction rate hovers around 30%. What makes it doubly
painful is that there is rise in atrocities, but when you try to
prosecute and convict, the conviction rate is only 30%. It was 28%,
31.4% and 32%. Not only are acquittals very high; pendency is about 80%.

[…]

I am afraid that the disposal of the cases is low; the rate of
conviction is low. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that the feeling
amongst the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes that all these laws
and all these statements, all these pronouncements have really not
brought any relief to them. That feeling is running high and I cannot
but say that feeling is justified.”^[14] (p143,144 of the printed text).

23 States have set up SC/ST Protection Cells. Nodal Officers have been appointed in 28 States.^[3]

Though the Act and rules are stringent, it is not a deterrent, as
the Minister for Home Affairs P Chidambaram admitted in the Lok Sabha,
referring to the Central Committee monitoring the implementation of the
Act:

A committee under the Chairmanship of the Minister of Social Justice
was set up after the SCs and STs (PoA), 1989 was passed. That Committee
has met, so far, 10 times. The situation in 25 States and 4 Union
Territories were reviewed. That committee has expressed that the most
important areas of concern are the following five:

1. firstly, the high rate of acquittal;
2. secondly, the high rate of pendency of cases and very low rate of disposal;
3. thirdly, inadequate use of the preventive provisions of the Act,
   while the punitive provisions are invoked and FIR is registered,
   preventive provisions are rarely invoked;
4. fourthly, that the committees and other mechanisms provided in the Act have virtually not been put to use; and fifthly,
5. the Act itself may not be deterrent, perhaps it is not being as deterrent as we thought it could be.^[14]

Drawbacks and lacunae

Bias

Going
through the Indian judicial system is degrading for any Dalit because
of the still existing biases of the court judges. One example 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.^[29]
Another example is the case of State of Karnataka v. Ingale.^[15]
The 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 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
testimony of the four Dalit witnesses. The Dalits finally got relief
from the Supreme Court.

Perhaps the most important bias (re implementation of this Act)
is that there is little done to prevent atrocities. Most of the reports
are of what is done after an atrocity has been committed. Few states
have preventive measures in place. The ‘relief’ provided is a pittance
and the confidence of the community is seldom rebuilt.

For some, the low conviction rates are evidence of misuse of the
Act by the SCs and STs to threaten and blackmail other communities.
Actual data on such misuse is not available. However, the acquittal
rates are abnormally high, as acknowledged by the prime minister and
home minister (quoted above). There is also a high rate of FIRs rejected
as being ‘false’ by the police, with 10% of the total cases
investigated in 2016 being closed as ‘false’.^[30]
In Karnataka the rejection rate at the police station level (the ‘B’
report that classifies a case as false) was 77% of total cases disposed
off in 2009^[31]—so much so that it became a topic for discussion in the SVMC.^[32]

This narrative of ‘false cases’ and misuse of the Act also found voice in the March 2018 decision of the Supreme Court in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
In addition to questioning Section 18 of the Act, which prohibits grant
of anticipatory bail for offences committed under the Act, the court
laid down guidelines, substantially diluting the provisions of the Act.^[33]
The court granted additional powers to the investigating officer to
conduct a preliminary inquiry before lodging a complaint. Further,
written permission of the appointing authority for all public officials
and of the District Superintendent of Police for other persons is
required before a complaint is registered.^[34][35]

Legal system

The
legal regime is fraught with contradictions. While the legal text is
explicit in seeking remedies, the implementation of the text appears to
evade actual performance. Laws and legal processes are not
self-executing; they depend on the administrative structure and the
judiciary with the anticipation that the social attitudes are driven by
notions of equity, social justice and fair play.^[36]
However, the increasingly indifferent responses of those involved in
the implementation of laws protecting the weak, the oppressed and the
socially disadvantaged have persisted over the years and the system has
failed to provide for self-correction. The problem is that the victims
of atrocities suffer not only bodily and mental pain but also feelings
of insecurity and social avoidance which is not present for the victims
of other crimes. If the judge delegated to protect them shows
indifference, it further aggravates their already vulnerable position.

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^[37]
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 SCs and STs basic civil rights.
The Act has addressed the problem the regarding the dispensation of
justice, but what it 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,^[38]
victims of atrocities and their families should be provided with full
financial and any other support 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.

SCs and STs constitute 68% of the total rural population.
According to the 1991 agricultural census a large number of SCs and 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 SCs and
STs. At the same time, the number of SC and 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 and ST cultivators are becoming agriculture labourers. Loss
of land, on the one hand, is caused by atrocities making them more
vulnerable. This in turn fuels and promotes continuance of atrocities
and untouchability.

Marginalisation is one of the worst forms of oppression.^{[citation needed]}
It expels a whole category of people from useful participation in the
society and therefore potentially subjected to material deprivation 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.^[39] Moreover, every right has three types of duties^{[citation needed]}—duty to

• Avoid deprivation.
• Protect from deprivation.
• Aid the deprived.

Though the SC/ST Act does cover these duties, and its implementation
is admittedly uneven, it is found wanting most in the third: duty to aid
the deprived. One possible reason could be that the State has to work
through its officials who are drawn from the same oppressive social
strata. Though the Act does mention that officers and other staff
appointed in an area prone to atrocity shall have the right aptitude and
understanding of the problems of the SCs and STs (Rule 13(1))
in practice, these officials often collude with their caste brethren
and even file counter-cases against the victims or their family members.^[40]
This means, in addition to the perpetrators getting away with the
original crime, free to further intimidate the victims, the victims are
left helpless—denied the government compensation and assistance to
rebuild their life. They have to go back to the same perpetrator caste
for their livelihood or daily wage labour. Hence, it is necessary to
make the SCs and STs self-dependent.

Lack of awareness

The
statement of object and reason of the SC/ST 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 effect.

The 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.^[41]

Misapplication of the Act by police and the courts aggravates the problem ultimately leads to acquittals.^[42]

Some atrocities not covered

Social
and economic boycott and blackmail are widespread. 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.^[38]

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 prevents the speedy trial envisaged under the Act. The
absence of adequate special courts has resulted in slow disposal of
atrocity cases and a huge backlog.

Empowering provisions

Migration

Under
constitutional provisions, a caste or tribe is notified with reference
to a State or Union territory. Hence a person born in state/UT gets
certificate of SC/ST if his/her father belongs to specified caste/tribe
in that state as SC/ST. On migration to another state, they lose their
SC/ST status for affirmative actions, i.e. benefit of admission in
educational institutes, reservation in government employment etc. but the protection accorded under this Act stays.^{[citation needed]}
Once a person is notified as SC/ST in any state/UT, they are protected
under the SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 throughout
the country, irrespective of whether the particular caste or tribe is
notified in the state/UT where the offence is committed.

Legal aid

Legal aid is available for all victims regardless of financial status. For all others legal aid depends on the financial status.

Civil society response

Monitoring implementation

Comprehensive tools have been developed to monitor the implementation of the Act for each case, and at the district and state levels.

Many civil society organisations (CSOs) started using this Act to
provide some relief to the victims almost immediately. A few Dalit and
human rights organizations took to monitoring violence against the
SC&ST communities, documenting them, publicizing them and also
monitoring the use of the Act in dealing with these crimes. One of the
first to monitor the implementation of this Act was Sakshi in Andhra Pradesh.

The full monitoring of the Act by CSOs is a later phenomenon^[43]
and has not matured in that civil society reports on implementation of
the Act (shadow reports to the ones mandated by the Act section 21(4))
are yet to be done.

Annual reports by Citizen’s monitoring committees have been done in Karnataka for 2009 (English), 2010 (English and Kannada) and a combined report for 2011 and 2012 (in English and Kannada(with monitoring tools))
auditing the performance of the State, including the bureaucracy,
judicial system, police and monitoring mechanisms (DVMCs and SVMC).
However, atrocities in the state still continue to rise, and convictions
remain low.

Filing PILs for implementation

Some
organizations also used the provisions of the Public Interest
Litigations (PIL) to demand better implementation under the Act at High
Court level and National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR) in the Supreme Court of India.

National coalition for Strengthening SC&ST PoA Act

On
the 20th anniversary of its enactment, CSOs came together from across
the country to review its implementation and formed the National
Coalition for Strengthening SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act Dr
Sirivella Prasad as its National Convener. This coalition took stock of
the implementation of the Act in a “report card”,^[44]
analysed the lacunae and suggested a set of amendments for improving
the implementation. State specific “fact sheets” were also made
available for Madhya Pradesh^[45] and Bihar.^[46]

Many important areas such as social and economic boycotts,
causing hurt, destruction of property, defining the SC communities to
include those who profess a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism,
Buddhism, and better monitoring mechanisms were identified.^{[citation needed]}

Continuous monitoring

Many organisations continue to monitor the implementation of the Act, and bring out state level reports.

1. Himachal Pradesh: Monitoring by Centre for Mountain Dalit Rights
2. Karnataka: Monitoring by Committee Monitoring and
   Strengthening the POA in Karnataka (CMASK) led by the Karnataka Dalit
   Mahilla Vedike (KDMV). State reports are available on the status of
   implementation during 2009 (English), 2010 (English and Kannada) and a combined report for 2011 and 2012 (in English and Kannada (with monitoring tools)). Also available in Kannada is the monitoring calendar .
3. Tamil Nadu: monitoring by SASY and HRF (Human Rights Advocacy and Research Foundation).

SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance 2014 (No 1 of 2014)

The Amendment Ordinance 2014
was signed by the president on 4 March 2014 and came into force
immediately. Since it was an ordinance, and was not ratified by (the
next) parliament within six (6) months it lapsed. It was then referred
back to the cabinet.

SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015

This
Act was passed to replace the ordinance of 2014. The bill was
introduced in parliament on 7 July 2014 and referred to the standing
committee on 17 July 2014. Subsequently, it was passed by the Lok Sabha
on 4 August 2015^[47] and then by the Rajya Sabha in December of that year.^[48]

It is virtually the same as the ordinance, with a few changes to improve efficiency.^{[citation needed]}
The key features of the Amendment Act of 2015 are

   Addition of following new category of offences to the existing 19 punishable offences. In addition to the 19 offences listed in the Act, following new offences proposed. To cite a few: tonsuring of head, moustache, or similar acts which are derogatory to the dignity of Dalits and Adivasis; garlanding with chappals; denying access to irrigation facilities or forest rights ; dispose or carry human or animal carcasses, or to dig graves; using or permitting manual scavenging; dedicating Dalit women as devadasi; abusing in caste name; perpetrating witchcraft atrocities; imposing social or economic boycott; preventing Dalit and Adivasi candidates filing of nomination to contest elections; hurting the modesty of Dalit/Adivasi woman by removing her garments; forcing to leave house, village or residence; defiling objects sacred to SCs and STs; touching a women or uses words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature against women.
   Addition of IPC offences attracting committed against Dalits or Adivasis as punishable offences under the POA Act. Presently, only those offences listed in IPC as attracting punishment of 10 years or more and committed on Dalits/ Adivasis are accepted as offences falling under the POA Act. A number of commonly committed offences (hurt, grievous hurt, intimidation, kidnapping etc.) are excluded from the Act. This provides loopholes for the perpetrators of crime to escape from being punished for these commonly committed crimes. Therefore, a Schedule of list of IPC offences is provided in the amended act.
   Establishment of Exclusive Special Courts and Special Public Prosecutors to exclusively try the offences falling under the POA Act to enable speedy and expeditious disposal of cases. Presently, Special Courts and Public Prosecutors also deal with other cases besides atrocity cases. Consequently, cases are kept pending for long time. Thus victims are denied justice or speedy justice. Establishment of an Exclusive Special Court for one or more districts and Exclusive Public Prosecutor is proposed;
   Power of Exclusive Courts to take cognizance of offence and completion of trial in 2 months. Courts so established or specified shall have power to directly take cognizance of offences under this Act and the trial shall, as far as possible, be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.
   Addition of chapter on the ‘Rights of Victims and Witnesses’. As of now, the Act recognizes a few rights of the victims and witnesses. This is insufficient. Therefore, many other essential rights are covered so as to impose duty and responsibility upon the State for making arrangements for the protection of victims, their dependants and witnesses against any kind of intimidation, coercion or inducement or violence or threats of violence.
   Defining clearly the term ‘wilful negligence’ of public servants at all levels, starting from the registration of complaint, and covering aspects of dereliction of duty under this Act. Section 4 of the present Act does not clearly define what constitutes ‘wilful negligence’ of public servants. Hence, ‘wilful negligence’ is defined by listing specific transgressions of law: for example, police officers not putting down accurately in writing the victim’s complaint; not reading out to the victims what has been recorded prior to getting their signature; not registering FIR under the Act; not registering it under appropriate sections of the Act; etc.
   Addition of presumption to the offences –If the accused was acquainted with the victim or his family, the court will presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim unless proved otherwise.

The Act, Rules and Amendments

1. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (The Bare Act)
2. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 (Just the Rules)
3. Amendments of 8 November 2013 Providing for subdivisional vigilance and monitoring committees and central government nominees at all levels.
4. Amendments of 23 June 2014 amending rules and enhancing compensation.
5. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance of 4 March 2014 (fairly comprehensive overhaul with new sections, chapters and schedules added)
6. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015
7. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018

16) Classical Bengali-ক্লাসিক্যাল বাংলা,

40) Classical Gujarati-ક્લાસિકલ ગુજરાતી,

કેન્દ્રીય પ્રધાનો ટી આર બાલુ અને દયાનિધિ મારને તેમની વિરુદ્ધ અનુસૂચિત જાતિ અને અનુસૂચિત જનજાતિ (એટ્રોસિટી નિવારણ અધિનિયમ, 1989) હેઠળ નોંધાયેલા કેસમાં રાજ્યસભાના સભ્ય અને પક્ષના સંગઠન સચિવ આર એસ ભારતીની ધરપકડના પગલે ડીએમકેના ટોચના નેતાઓ.

બાબાસાહેબ ડ Dr..આંબેડકર દ્વારા જોયેલા, માનવર કાંશીરામ સાહેબે રાજકીય પક્ષની શરૂઆત કરી, એટલે કે, બહુજન સમાજ પાર્ટી, 14 એપ્રિલ, 1984 ના રોજ. આપણે, આપણા પૂર્વજોના અનુસરણ અને મનાવર કાંશીરામ સાહેબના માર્ગદર્શન દ્વારા, અમારી રચના કરવામાં સક્ષમ છીએ ભૂતકાળમાં ઉત્તર પ્રદેશમાં ચાર વખત પોતાની સરકાર છે. પરિણામે, અમે ઉત્તરપ્રદેશમાં આપણા લોકોની સામાજિક-આર્થિક સ્થિતિમાં સુધારો કરવા સક્ષમ છીએ. અમે આપણા લોકોના બંધારણીય હકોને સુરક્ષિત કરવામાં સક્ષમ છીએ. અમે અમારા પૂર્વજોના સન્માનમાં સ્મારકો, પ્રતિમાઓ અને ઉદ્યાનો બનાવવામાં પણ સક્ષમ છીએ. પરંતુ અમે અન્ય રાજ્યોમાં અમારી સરકાર બનાવવામાં સફળ થઈ શક્યા નહીં. પરિણામે, આપણા લોકો ઉપર અત્યાચારો અવિરત ચાલુ છે. ગરીબોનું શોષણ સમાપ્ત થયું નથી.

ભાજપ દ્વારા ઇવીએમ પર છેડછાડ: બસપાને હરાવવા માટે તેઓએ ઇલેક્ટ્રોનિક વોટિંગ મશીનો (ઇવીએમ) સાથે ચેડાં કરવાની કપટભર્યા રીતનો સહારો લેવો પડ્યો હતો.
ભાજપ અને કંપનીએ જ સામાન્ય ચૂંટણી જીતવા માટે 2014 માં જ ઈવીએમનો ઉપયોગ કર્યો હતો. બીએસપીએ વિચાર્યું કે કોંગ્રેસના કૌભાંડોથી ઘેરાયેલા અને કૌભાંડો-કલંકિત શાસન સામેનો આ આદેશ છે. પરંતુ માર્ચ 2017 માં યોજાયેલા પાંચ રાજ્યોના ચૂંટણી પરિણામોએ ભાજપના ઈવીએમ કૌભાંડનો પર્દાફાશ કર્યો છે. તેઓ પંજાબ, ઉત્તરાખંડ, ગોવા અને મણિપુરમાં જીતી શક્યા નહીં. ગોવા અને મણિપુરમાં, કોંગ્રેસ પાર્ટીને ભાજપ ઉપર લીડ મળી. પરંતુ ભાજપના નેતાઓએ અન્ય ધારાસભ્યોને તેમની સરકાર બનાવવાની વ્યવસ્થા કરી છે. ઉત્તરાખંડમાં કોંગ્રેસનો આંતરીક ઝઘડો હતો જેનાથી ભાજપને લીડ મળી. પંજાબમાં અકાલી દળના એન્ટી ઇન્કમ્બંસી ફેક્ટરએ કોંગ્રેસને જીત અપાવી. અકાલી દળની ભાગીદાર હોવાથી ભાજપ ચૂંટણી હારી ગઈ. ઉપરોક્ત ચારેય રાજ્યોમાં, તેઓએ ઇવીએમ સાથે ચેડાં કર્યા ન હતા અને પરિણામો અપેક્ષિત લાઈનો પર આવ્યા હતા. પરંતુ ઉત્તર પ્રદેશમાં કોઈને પણ અપેક્ષા નહોતી કે ભાજપને આટલા મોટા વિજયની હાંસલ થશે. યુપીના વરિષ્ઠ અમલદારો, જે સામાન્ય રીતે પરિણામો અગાઉથી જાણતા હોય છે, તેઓ બસપા સરકારને આવકારવાની તૈયારી કરી રહ્યા હતા. જ્યારે પરિણામો જાહેર થયા ત્યારે તેઓ એકદમ આશ્ચર્યચકિત થયા. મેં, વહેલી સવારે પરિણામોનું વલણ જોતાં પ્રેસ પાસે જઈને ઈવીએમની છેતરપિંડીનો પર્દાફાશ કર્યો. પછીથી, અમે ઇવીએમની છેતરપિંડી અને ઇવીએમ સાથે વીવીપેટને શામેલ કરવા કાનૂની લડત સામે દેશવ્યાપી સંઘર્ષ પણ શરૂ કર્યો. આમ, અમે દરેક પગલા પર ભાજપનો મુકાબલો કરી રહ્યા છીએ.

એનઆરઆઈ, સીએએ, એનપીઆર દ્વારા ચિતપવન પ્રબુદ્ધ ભારતના આદિવાસી મુસ્લિમોને અલગ રાખવા માગે છે. પરંતુ તે ફક્ત એસસી / એસટીને અલગ પાડવાનું હતું. હવે કોવિડ -૧ them એ બધા રાજ્યો, જિલ્લાઓ અને ઘરોમાં લક્ષ્મણ રેખા દોરીને મુખ્ય ધારાથી ધાર્મિક લઘુમતીઓ, એસસી / એસટી / ઓબીસીઓને અલગ કરવા માટે સહેલું બની ગયું છે. પરંતુ રાઉડી / રક્ષા સ્વયમના બેન ઇઝરાઇલના ચિતપવન બ્રાહ્મણોના વિદેશી લોકો. અલગ છે.

91) Classical Sindhi,

يونين وزيرن T R Baalu ​​۽ Dayanidhi Maran ، سندن خلاف رجسٽرڊ ذات ۽ شيڊول ٽربيل (ظلم جي روڪٿام ايڪٽ 1989) ، راجيا سڀا جي اڳواڻ ۽ پارٽي جي تنظيم جي سيڪريٽري آر ايس ڀٽيءَ جي گرفتاري کانپوءِ هڪ ڪيس ۾ گرفتار ٿيو.

جيئن باباصاحب ڊاڪٽر امبيدڪر پاران خواب ڏٺو ويو ، ڪيترنور ڪنسي رام صاحب 14 اپريل 1984 تي سياسي پارٽي ، يعني بهوجن سماج پارٽي شروع ڪئي. اسان ، پنهنجن ابن ڏاڏن جي نقش قدم تي هلندي ۽ ڪيترنور ڪنڊي رام صاحب جي رهنمائي ڪندي ، گذريل حڪومت اترپرديش ۾ چار دفعا ويو. انهي جي نتيجي ۾ ، اسان اتر پرديش ۾ اسان جي ماڻهن جي سماجي ۽ اقتصادي حالت بهتر ڪرڻ جي قابل آهيون. اسان پنهنجي عوام جي آئيني حقن کي محفوظ رکڻ جي قابل آهيون. اسان پنهنجي ابن ڏاڏن جي عزت ۾ يادگار ، مجسما ۽ پارڪ تعمير ڪرڻ جي قابل پڻ آهيون. پر اسان ٻين رياستن ۾ پنهنجي حڪومت ٺاهڻ ۾ ڪامياب ڪونه ٿي سگهيا آهيون. نتيجي ۾ ، اسان جي ماڻهن تي مظالم اوچتو جاري آهي. غريبن جو استحصال ختم نه ٿيو آهي.

بي جي پي کي اي وي ايمز جي ڌمڪين: انهن کي بي ايس پي کي شڪست ڏيڻ لاءِ برقي ووٽنگ مشين (اي وي ايم) کي غلط استعمال ڪرڻ جو فراڊ وارو طريقو اختيار ڪرڻ هو.
عام چونڊن ۾ ڪاميابي حاصل ڪرڻ لاءِ بي جي پي ۽ ڪمپني 2014 ۾ اي وي ايمز استعمال ڪيا هئا. بي ايس پي سوچيو ته هي ڪانگريس جي اسڪينڊلس ۽ بدمعاشي داغدار ٿيندڙ خلاف خلاف حڪم هو. پر مارچ 2017 ۾ منعقد ٿيل پنجن رياستن جي چونڊ نتيجن بي جي پي جي اي ايم ايم اسڪينڊل کي بي نقاب ڪري ڇڏيو. اهي پنجاب ، اترپند ، گوا ۽ مني پور ۾ کٽي نه سگهيا. گوا ۽ مني پور ۾ ڪانگريس پارٽي کي بي جي پي تي برتري حاصل ٿي وئي. پر بي جي پي جي اڳواڻ ٻين ايم ايل ايز کي پنهنجي حڪومتون ٺاهي چڪا آهن. اُترکنڌ ۾ ، اهو ڪانگريس جو اندروني جهيڙو هو جنهن بي جي پي کي قيادت ڏني. پنجاب ۾ اڪيلي دل جي مخالف برابري واري عنصر ڪانگريس کي فتح ڏني. بي جي پي ، اڪالي دل جي ساٿي هجڻ ڪري اليڪشن وڃائي ويٺي. مٿين سڀني چئن رياستن ۾ ، هنن اي وي ايمز سان چھیڙيون نه ڪيون ۽ نتيجا متوقع خطن تي هئا. پر اترپرديش ۾ ، ڪنهن کي به اميد نه هئي ته بي جي پي کي ايتري وڏي فتح حاصل ٿيندي. يوپي جو سينئر بيوروڪريٽ ، جيڪو عام طور تي پهريان theاڻيندو آهي اڳ ۾ ئي نتيجا ،اڻائڻ ، بي ايس پي حڪومت کي خوش ڪرڻ لاءِ تياريون ڪري رهيا هئا. جڏهن اهي اعلان ڪيا ويا ته اهي مڪمل طور تي حيران هئا. مان ، صبح جو دير تائين نتيجن جو رجحان ڏسي ، پريس ۾ ويو ۽ EVM فراڊ کي بي نقاب ڪيو. بعد ۾ ، اسان پڻ اي وي ايمز جي دوکي جي خلاف قومي سطح تي جدوجهد شروع ڪئي ۽ وي وي پيٽ کي اي وي ايمز سان شامل ڪرڻ لاءِ قانوني ويڙهه. ان ڪري ، اسان بي جي پي سان هر قدم تي مقابلو ڪري رهيا آهيون.

اين آر آئي ، سي اي اي ، اين آر پي ذريعي چتپانن پرتاب ڀڳت جي بدنصيبي مسلمانن کي ڌار ڪرڻ ٿي چاهيو. پر اهو صرف ايس ايس / ايس ٽي کان ڌار ڪرڻ لاءِ هو. هاڻي COVID-19 انهن لاءِ هٿرادو ٿي ويو آهي ته ڌار ڌار ، مذهبي اقليتن ، ايس سي / ايس ٽي / او بي سي مين وهڪري تان ، سڀني رياستن ، ضلعن ۽ حتي گهر ۾ لکشمن ريکاره کي ڪ Bريو. ڌاريا آهن.