Context
Recently, the Supreme Court held in a judgement that not all insults and intimidatory remarks 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
- The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 was first passed in Parliament to remove inherent discriminatory attitudes towards the SCs and STs.
- It was renamed as the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act in 1976.
- Later, due to the ineffectiveness of the above acts, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came into force.
- According to the SC/ST Act, the protection is furnished from social disabilities along with denial of access to certain places and to use a customary passage, personal atrocities like forceful ingesting or consuming of inedible food, sexual exploitation, harm, and so on, and atrocities affecting houses, malicious prosecution, political disabilities, and economic exploitation.
- The SC/ST Act is in order to deliver justice to the marginalised by proactive efforts, giving them a life of dignity, shallowness, and a life without worry, violence, or suppression from the dominant castes.
Provisions of Criminal Law
- Atrocities can be devoted most effectively by non-SCs and non-STs on individuals of the SC or ST communities.
- Crimes amongst or among SCs and STs do not come under the purview of this Act.
- Cancellation of arms licenses within the regions diagnosed wherein an atrocity may take or has taken place and grant arms licenses to the SCs and STs.
Amendment
- The Act was amended in 2015 to make it more powerful and to provide more justice and more suitable redressal to injustice suffered through the atrocity victims.
- It consists of new offences, elevated scope of presumptions, institutional strengthening, and established order of Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts to completely try offences under the SC/ST Act to allow expeditious disposal of instances.
Recent Observation of Supreme Court
- Intent Matters: The court emphasised that the aim in the back of the insult or intimidation is essential. Mere information that the victim belongs to an SC/ST community is insufficient to invoke the provisions of the Act.
- Instead, the insult should be deliberately directed at the sufferer due to their caste identification.
- Caste-Based Humiliation: To trigger the Act, the ‘humiliation’ inflicted by way of the aggressor must be intricately associated with the sufferer’s caste identification.
- In different phrases, it’s not every intentional insult that affects caste- based humiliation. The court docket clarified that this applies only in instances wherein the insult reinforces traditionally entrenched ideas, consisting of untouchability or notions of caste superiority.
- The court recognized that insults or intimidation can occur without connection with caste. If the insult is not specifically tied to the victim’s SC/ST reputation, it does not fall under the purview of the Act.
- Anticipatory Bail: It can’t be denied under Section 18 of the Act until a prima facie case under the Act is set up against the accused. It guarantees that people aren’t unfairly deprived of their right to seek anticipatory bail.
Source: The Hindu