SC/ST Act: Legal Protections Explained
Uploaded by
aadityaSC/ST Act: Legal Protections Explained
Uploaded by
aadityaCommon questions
Powered by AIThe 2018 Amendment Bill addressed concerns from prior judicial decisions by negating the requirement for preliminary inquiries and approval for arrests, thereby simplifying the process for action against offenders. It clarified that anticipatory bail provisions do not apply, which counteracts the Supreme Court's judgment that allowed for such considerations. This legislative action was a direct response to the backlash from marginalized communities who feared that such judicial interventions undermined the Act's deterrent effect .
The provisions for punishing repeated offenders under the SC/ST Act include enhanced punishments, ensuring a sterner deterrent against recurring violations. These measures reflect the Act's approach to deterring habitual offenders by imposing not just higher sentences but potentially severe penalties, underscoring the severity with which the law views repeat offences against SCs/STs .
The SC/ST Act specifies several administrative roles and responsibilities to facilitate its enforcement, such as appointing a Court of Session as a Special Court for speedy trials and appointing a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting cases under the Act. It mandates that investigations can only be conducted by an officer of at least the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, ensuring accountability and proper attention to cases under the Act .
The 2018 amendment to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act removed the requirement for a preliminary enquiry prior to registering a First Information Report (FIR) and eliminated the need for approval from any authority for the arrest of an accused. It also stated that the provisions of section 438 of the Code regarding anticipatory bail would not apply, contrary to previous Supreme Court judgements suggesting limitations on arrests under the Act .
The socio-political impacts anticipated from the introduction and amendments of the SC/ST Act included better protection of marginalized communities' rights and integration into socio-political frameworks. The government saw the amendments as a means to reinforce its commitment to social justice and thus broaden its support base among these communities. Critics, however, were concerned that judicial limitations, before the amendments, undermined the Act’s purpose, potentially eroding trust in the government to protect marginalized communities, affecting the political dynamics and voter base of ruling parties .
The main objectives of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, enacted in 1989, are to deliver justice to marginalized communities through proactive efforts, and to ensure they lead a life of dignity and self-esteem free from fear, violence, and oppression by dominant castes. It aims to prohibit the commission of crimes against SCs and STs, ensure speedy trials by setting up special courts, and provide rehabilitation for victims .
The Supreme Court's 2018 decision posited that there is no absolute prohibition on granting anticipatory bail in cases under the SC/ST Act, which prompted concerns about diluting the Act's effectiveness. Dalit groups and individuals criticized the decision as it might reduce the law's ability to protect the marginalized communities effectively, leading to protests and calls for amendments to restore the Act's earlier provisions .
The SC/ST Act aimed to prevent the malicious prosecution of its protected groups by outlining specific offences that qualify as violations, thus distinguishing genuine grievances from frivolous or malicious accusations. It imposes penalties for any public servant neglecting their duties or committing such offences, ensuring accountability in legal proceedings .
Speedy trials are necessary under the SC/ST Act to ensure timely justice for victims of caste-based atrocities, thereby helping them restore their dignity and provide immediate relief and rehabilitation. This is facilitated by designating a Court of Session as a Special Court in each district, specifically mandated to try offences under the Act swiftly. A Special Public Prosecutor is also appointed to expedite proceedings .
The consequences of major anti-government mobilizations, such as those following Rohith Vemula's death, included intensified scrutiny and pressure on the government to address issues related to atrocities against Dalits and other marginalized communities. This led to legislative actions like the amendments to the SC/ST Act, aimed at strengthening its provisions and counteracting perceived judicial dilutions, reflecting the urgency to politically appease and protect marginalized sections .
