Supreme Court of India on SC/ST Act, 1989 

Syllabus: GS2/Vulnerable Section of Society

Context

• Recently, the Supreme Court held in a judgement that not all insults and intimidatory comments aimed at a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe person would be an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).

Background of SC / ST Act

• The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 was initially passed in Parliament to eradicate inherent discriminatory attitudes against the SCs and STs.
• It was renamed as the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act in 1976.
• Later, owing to the ineffectiveness of the above acts, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came into existence.

• According to the SC/ST Act, the protection is provided from social disabilities such as denial of access to certain places and to use a customary passage, personal atrocities like forceful drinking or eating of inedible food, sexual exploitation, injury, etc, and atrocities affecting properties, malicious prosecution, political disabilities, and economic exploitation.
• The SC/ST Act is in place to deliver justice to the marginalised through proactive efforts, giving them a life of dignity, self-esteem, and a life without fear, violence, or suppression from the dominant castes.

Provisions of Criminal Law

• Atrocities can be committed only by non-SCs and non-STs on members of the SC or ST communities.
  • Crimes among or between SCs and STs do not come under the purview of this Act.
• Cancellation of arms licences in the areas identified where an atrocity may take or has taken place and grant arms licences to the SCs and STs.

Amendment

• The Act was amended in 2015 to make it more effective and to provide greater justice and enhanced redressal to injustice suffered by the atrocity victims.
• It includes new offences, expanded scope of presumptions, institutional strengthening, and establishment of Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts to exclusively try offences under the SC/ST Act to enable expeditious disposal of cases.

Recent Observation of Supreme Court

• Intent Matters: The court emphasised that the intention behind the insult or intimidation is crucial. Mere knowledge that the victim belongs to an SC/ST community is insufficient to invoke the provisions of the Act.
  • Instead, the insult must be intentionally directed at the victim because of their caste identity.
• Caste-Based Humiliation: To trigger the Act, the ‘humiliation’ inflicted by the aggressor must be intricately associated with the victim’s caste identity.
  • In other words, it’s not every intentional insult that results in caste-based humiliation. The court clarified that this applies only in cases where the insult reinforces historically entrenched ideas, such as untouchability or notions of caste superiority.
• The court recognised that insults or intimidation can occur without reference to caste. If the insult is not specifically tied to the victim’s SC/ST status, it does not fall under the purview of the Act.
• Anticipatory Bail: It cannot be denied under Section 18 of the Act unless a prima facie case under the Act is established against the accused. It ensures that individuals are not unfairly deprived of their right to seek anticipatory bail.

Source: IE