Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was enacted to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It aims to provide for the rehabilitation of victims and for other matters connected therewith. However, concerns regarding its implementation and potential misuse led to judicial scrutiny and subsequent amendments, most notably through the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018. This amendment sought to address the concerns raised by the Supreme Court while reaffirming the Act’s core objectives.
Original Provisions of the Act, 1989
The Act originally defined atrocities as a wide range of acts committed against members of SC/ST communities, including insults, humiliation, and denial of access to public places. It prescribed stringent punishments, including imprisonment and fines, for those found guilty of committing such atrocities. Section 14 of the Act imposed a general prohibition and prescribed punishments for offences. The Act also established Special Courts for the speedy trial of cases.
The Landmark Supreme Court Judgement (March 20, 2018)
In Hitesh Verma v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court introduced the requirement of ‘prior approval’ from a competent authority for the arrest of individuals accused under the Act. The Court reasoned that the Act was being misused, leading to false accusations and harassment. This judgement stipulated that an arrest should only be made if the Investigating Officer (IO) believed a case was made out under the Act, and after obtaining the approval of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) or a police officer of equivalent rank.
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018
The 2018 Amendment Act was enacted in response to widespread protests following the Supreme Court’s judgement, which was perceived as diluting the Act’s effectiveness. The key changes introduced by the amendment are:
- Overruling the Supreme Court’s directive on prior approval: The amendment explicitly stated that the provision for prior approval for arrest was not part of the original Act and was therefore invalid. This restored the original provisions regarding arrest procedures.
- Addition of Section 17A: This new section was inserted, outlining the procedure for granting anticipatory bail in cases under the Act. It stipulates that anticipatory bail should not be granted unless the court is satisfied that there is no prima facie case made out or that the allegations constitute an offence under the Act.
- Definition of ‘Atrocity’ expanded: The definition of ‘atrocity’ was broadened to include acts of intentional insult or intimidation with the intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe.
- Enhanced Punishment: The amendment increased the minimum punishment for certain offences under the Act.
Subsequent Judicial Review
The validity of the 2018 Amendment Act was challenged before the Supreme Court. In 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the amendment, but clarified that the safeguards regarding arrest and anticipatory bail should be applied judiciously to prevent misuse of the Act. The court emphasized the need to balance the protection of the rights of SC/ST communities with the fundamental rights of individuals accused of offences.
Comparison of Provisions
| Provision | Original Act (1989) | Post-2018 Amendment |
|---|---|---|
| Arrest Procedure | Direct arrest based on evidence | Initially, required prior approval (SC judgement); then restored to direct arrest by the 2018 Amendment |
| Anticipatory Bail | Available under CrPC provisions | Section 17A introduced, restricting anticipatory bail unless prima facie case is not made out |
| Definition of Atrocity | Specific acts of violence and humiliation | Broadened to include intentional insult and intimidation |
Conclusion
The amendments to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, reflect a complex interplay between legislative intent, judicial intervention, and social realities. While the 2018 amendment aimed to strengthen the Act and address concerns about its dilution, the Supreme Court’s subsequent clarification underscores the need for a balanced approach. Effective implementation, coupled with awareness and sensitivity, remains crucial to ensure the Act’s objectives are met and justice is served to the vulnerable communities it seeks to protect.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.