SC refuses to stay its directions on SC/ST Act; clarifies its order

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, April 3

Amid violent protests against its directions providing for safeguards against misuse of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified that the order would not come in the way of giving compensation to victims of atrocities under the Act.

While turning down the requests of Attorney General KK Venugopal and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to keep its directions in abeyance, a Bench of Justice AK Goel and Justice UU Lalit said pending a preliminary enquiry, the compensation provided for under the Act and the 2016 Rules can be disbursed to the complainant.

The Bench also clarified that if there are allegations against someone under SC/ST Act and the Indian Penal Code, police could immediately register an FIR under the IPC and charges under the Act could be added later after a preliminary enquiry as laid down in its March 20 order.

The Bench said it did not dilute any substantive provisions of the special Act.

“What we have done is only to provide protection to innocent people from arrest,” the Bench said, adding that those protesting had either not read its verdict correctly, or had been misled by vested interests.

It heard the Centre’s review petition in an open court, contrary to the normal practice that requires review petitions to be heard in chamber through circulation where lawyers are not allowed to advance arguments.

The Bench refused to go into the issue of violence against its order, saying: “We are only concerned about the legal issues involved”.

As the Attorney General sought stay of the order, the Bench said: “We have not closed the matter. You can convince us and we will consider your arguments”.

During the one-hour hearing, the two judges repeatedly underlined that they had not diluted any provision of the Act and that they had only tried to protect innocent persons from arbitrary arrets as there was no provision for anticipatory bail under the Act.

The clarification came after the Attorney General pointed out that due to the requirement of preliminary enquiry, a member of SC/ST community filing a complaint under the Act, may be deprived of the compensation, a part of which he/she is supposed to get immediately.

Mehta, who represented the state of Maharashtra, adopted the Attorney General’s submission, was allowed by the court to file his written submission.

The court allowed all the parties to the original petition to file their written submission in two days. Rejoinders have to be filed in the next three days.

The Bench said it would take up the matter after two weeks. It said it will hear only the Centre’s review petition and those filed by others would be taken up later.

Earlier, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra had in the morning agreed mark the review petition to the original Bench of Justice Goel and Justice Lalit for hearing at 2 pm after Venugopal referred to large-scale violence and loss of lives and property during Monday’s Bharat Bandh.

Demanding urgent hearing of the matter, AG had said it was an emergency situation as large-scale violence had taken place.

Amicus curie and senior advocate Amarendra Sharan, who had assisted the court in the original SC/ST verdict, opposed the Centre’s plea and said violence can’t be a ground to review a verdict.

In its review petition, the Centre said the March 20 verdict had “wide ramification and implication resulting in dilution of the stringent provisions of law enacted under the 1989 enactment. It adversely affects a substantial portion of the population of India being the members of SC/ST. It is also contrary to the legislative policy of Parliament as reflected in the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989”.

All India Federation of SC/ST Organisations, a conglomerate of nearly 150 employees’ groups, too has filed a review petition, saying after the verdict large-scale nationwide violence had taken place in which several people had lost their lives.

In its March 20 verdict, the top court said that “in view of the acknowledged abuse of law of arrest in cases under the Atrocities Act, arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) which may be granted in appropriate cases if considered necessary for reasons recorded”.

It had also directed that the reasons recorded by the competent authority and the SSP must be scrutinised by the magistrate for permitting further detention of an accused.

To avoid implication of an innocent, the top court directed that a preliminary inquiry may be conducted by a DSP-rank officer to find whether the allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act and are not frivolous or motivated.