TABLE OF CONTENTS

Statement Of Problem......................................................................................................................2

Objectives........................................................................................................................................2

Hypothesis.......................................................................................................................................2

Methodology Of Study....................................................................................................................2

Introduction......................................................................................................................................3

Legislative Prespective....................................................................................................................3

Overveiw Of The Act......................................................................................................................4

Aim And Object Of The Act...........................................................................................................5

Atrocities On Sc/St: An Empirical Study........................................................................................5

Atrocities On Scheduled Castes.......................................................................................................7

Atrocities On Scheduled Tribe........................................................................................................9

Prevention Of Commission Of Offences Of Atrocities Against The Members Of Scheduled Caste

Or Scheduled Tribe........................................................................................................................10

Definition Of Atrocities.............................................................................................................10

Section 3: Poa, 1989...................................................................................................................10

Special Court And Exclusive Special Court For Trial Of Offences Of Atrocities........................19

Relief And Rehabilitation Of The Victims Of Such Atrocities.....................................................21

Other Matters Connected Thereto The Atrocities Against Scheduled Caste And Sheduled Tribe
.......................................................................................................................................................22

The S.C & S.T (Prevention Of Atrocities) Rules, 1995................................................................25

Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................27

Bibliography..................................................................................................................................32

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 1|Page

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The present paper aims to understand the impact of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is a critique of the said legislative document
looking into the various definitions, procedures and legislative incompetency that exist. The aid
has been taken from past experiences, Judicial pronouncements and the various litreture
available.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives addressed in this paper are:

 To study the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989To

 To understand rationale behind the legislation. Reason based approach

 To identify the issues around the problem of caste based atrocities.

 To find out a solution after studying existing legislative substance.

HYPOTHESIS

Caste based atrocities have become the biggest target of legislatures post Constitutional
enactment. With this backdrop we need to see how much success or failure have been tasted by
the legislative authorities and how much has the society adapted.

METHODOLOGY OF STUDY

The methodology adopted by the researcher for the present study is mainly doctrinal, analytical
and descriptive. Keeping in mind the nature and scope of the study, the researcher has mainly
relied on primary sources such as the Constitution of India and various Statutes that were
necessary for the purpose of study of issue addressed in this paper. Secondary sources like the
books, articles, and e-journals have also been consulted. Use of internet becomes very relevant to
find out the most updated, relevant and apt information which helped to explore the subjects
from various dimensions.

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 2|Page

 INTRODUCTION

Vedic India was a casteless and classless society. Caste system came into being as a special
feature of the Brahminical Culture and Priests were its strongest advocates and “after investing it
with a sacred character in the eyes of the people, they expanded into an immense spider’s web,
which separated class from class, family from family, man from man and which, while it
rendered all united action impossible, enabled the watchful priests to pounce upon all who dared
to disturb the threads of their social tissues and to wither them to death.” 1 Entrenched caste-
ridden society could be termed as a non-contractual status ‘society’.2

LEGISLATIVE PRESPECTIVE

Before the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was
passed, the Parliament had passed an Act known as the “The Protection of the Civil Rights Act,
1955” to prescribe punishment for the preaching and practice of “untouchability” for the
enforcement of any disability arising there from and for matters connected therewith.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill of the aforesaid Act before the Act
was passed had been prepared in pursuance of Article 17 of the Constitution, by which
untouchability was forbidden. The Hindus who from the majority, in our country, are divided
into the four Varnas, namely, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and lastly Shudras. The
untouchability is a product of the Hindu Caste system. In Hadibandhu Behera v. Banamali
Sahu,3 it was observed by his Lordship R.L. Narsimhan, C.J. on this aspect that:

“ One may notice an interesting point that…..how far after the coming of the Constitution into
force, it will be constitutional for any group of persons whether they be headmen of certain
castes or other persons, to outcast a person for transgression of the caste rules. Article 17 of the
Constitution prohibits untouchability in any form.”

Subsequently, the Parliament passed an Act known as The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955
and the expression “Untouchability” and “Untouchable” has not been defined. But, Section 4(x)
of the Act makes it penal if any person on the ground of untouchability is subjected to any

1
Max Muller, Chips from the German Workshp, Vol.II
2
Henry Sumner Maine.
3
AIR 1961 Ori 33.

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 3|Page

disability with regard to the observance of any social or religious custom, usage or ceremony, or
taking part in any religious procession. It was felt that the “atrocities” committed on Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled tribes had not been diminished, therefore, the Parliament passed the
impugned Act known as “The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989”

OVERVEIW OF THE ACT

This Act is very short enactment containing in all 23 sections. Various sections of the Act have
incorporated relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure so
as to give an effective meaning and severely enforceable impact to the provisions of the Act.
Section 3 of the Act provides for punishment for offences of atrocities and Section 4 provides for
punishment for neglect duty by non-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes public servants, as
required to be performed by them under the Act. Section 8 makes a statutory presumption
the accused was having personal knowledge of the victim or his family, accused was aware of the
e caste or tribal identity of the victim, unless the contrary is proved.

Under Section 14,  Special Court and Exclusive Special Court are to be constituted by the State

Government for each district for the trial of offenses under the Act and Court of Session is to be
specified as Special Court. Accordingly, the Special Court will be competent to take cognizance
of the offences under the Act only when the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate as
provided in Section 193 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. Section 15 provides for
Special Public Prosecutor and Exclusive Public Prosecutor. The anxiety of the Legislature to in
treating the offences under the Act as serious and grave is, therefore, self-evident.

Section 18 of the Act declares that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on pre-arrest
or the anticipatory bail will not apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on
an accusation of having committed an offence under the Act. Section 18 of the Act was declared
ultra vires the Constitution of the India by the M.P. High Court but the Supreme Court has
upheld its constitutional validity. Still, the Gujarat High Court has rightly expressed the view that
if the allegations against a person clearly point out mala fides, harassment and vexation, such
person entitled to pre-arrest bail.

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 4|Page

The Act under Section 19 has rightly denied the benefit of release on probation of any person
convicted for an offence under the Act, as available under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and under the provisions of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1950, unless the
offender is below the age of 18 years. Section 20 of the Act gives an overriding effect to the Act
over other laws.

AIM AND OBJECT OF THE ACT

Prior to the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 there were several State and Provincial
Legislations touching the removal of civil disabilities and social disabilities in relation to the
Harijans and the Hindu society as well. The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 was thought to
prescribe punishment for the breach and practice of untouchability, for the enforcement of any
disability arising therefrom and for matters connected therewith. Section 17 of the said Act
dealing with the repeal in fact had repealed the said State Legislatures or Provincial Legislatures.
In the view of prevailing problem of the Indian Society, another Legislation was thought of. The
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the said Act
aimed at:

(1) For prevention the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,
(2) For providing special Courts for Trial of Such offence
(3) For providing the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offence,
(4) To deal with all other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

ATROCITIES ON SC/ST: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY

(SPECIAL REFERENCE TO FIRST REPORT OF SC\ST COMMISSION)

Under Article 338 of the Constitution the commission is required to inquire into specific
complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguards of SC and ST. It is also the
duty of the Commission to investigate and monitor all matters relating to the safeguards provided
for SC and ST under the Constitution or under any law or any order of the Government. The first
Report of National Commission for SC and ST presents an account of the work done by the

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 5|Page

Commission during 1993-94 in dealing with specific cases of complaints and on-the-spot
enquiries into cases of untouchability offences and atrocities.4

A positive step to check occurrence of atrocities is to identify atrocity-prone areas and take
preventive measures so that incidents of atrocities do not occur. Section 21 of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 enjoins upon the State
Governments/UT Administrations to conduct periodic surveys of the working of the Act with a
view to suggesting measures for better implementation of the provisions of the Act and for
identification of areas where SC and ST persons are likely to be victims of atrocities so as to take
preventive action to check occurrence of such crimes. According to the information available
with the Ministry of Welfare only eight States had identified 69 districts and villages in such
districts as atrocity-prone and sensitive areas.

S.NO STATE NO. OF ATROCITY-PRONE

DISTRICTS
1. Bihar 11
2. Gujarat 11
3. Haryana 5
4. Karnataka 6
5. Maharashtra 6
6. Madhya Pradesh 7
7. Punjab 8
8. Uttar Pradesh 20

*Source: First report of Commission on SC and ST, 1994

A total of 7,702 incidents of crime against persons belonging to schedule caste and 35 cases
against persons belonging to scheduled tribes were registered with police authorities in Uttar
Pradesh in 2011, revealed the NCRB (National Crime Record Bureau) report. The statistics show
an increase of 7.9 per cent in the number of cases against the SC and ST over the previous year.

4
The First Report of the Commission was submitted to the President of India on the 15th August, 1994.

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 6|Page

It may, however, be noted that these figures do not faithfully reflect the ground situation. These
are only the figures reported by the State Governments/U.T. Administrations to the Ministry of
Welfare. The actual number of cases of atrocities on SC & ST may be much more than those
furnished in the above table. For example, Delhi reported only two cases of atrocities during
1992 but during that year five cases of atrocities that occurred during 1992 were dealt with in the
Commission. The break-up of these five cases was: murder 3, rape 1 and other IPC offences.
Obviously all the cases of atrocities on SC & ST did not come to the notice of the commission.

ATROCITIES ON SCHEDULED CASTES

There are 260 million Dalit people around the world, 166,635,700 of whom live in India. Dalit
people are at the bottom of a hierarchical caste system determined  by birth. Although Indian law
prohibits discrimination and violence against Dalit people, in reality atrocities are a daily
occurrence.

 13 Dalits are murdered each week. 
 5 Dalit homes are burnt each week.
 6 Dalit people are kidnapped or abducted each week. 
 21 Dalit women raped each week.   

It is estimated that a crime is committed against a Dalit person every 18 minutes. The problem
not the law but the lack of political will, at local and national levels, to apply these laws. In 2006,
the official conviction rate for Dalit atrocity cases was just 5.3%. Social discrimination is also a
major problem. Dalit people are considered ‘untouchable’; most higher caste people would not
marry a Dalit, invite them into their home or share food with them.

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 7|Page

  Dalit children sit separately from other children in schools.  Almost 1 out of every
3 government school in rural areas prohibit children from sitting together.
 Dalits are prevented from entering police stations in 27.6% of rural villages,
 Public health workers refuse to enter Dalit homes in 1 out of 3 rural villages,
 Almost half of Dalit villages are denied access to water sources,
 Dalit and non-Dalit people cannot eat together in 70% of rural villages

Dalit women experience triple discrimination based on their caste, their economic situation and
their gender.

 70% of Dalit women are illiterate in rural India

 Thousands of girls are forced into prostitution before they reach puberty. .

The International Dalit Solidarity Network states “ Violence, including sexual assault, is used by
dominant castes as a social mechanism for humiliating entire Dalit communities.” Crimes against
scheduled castes rose almost steadily to 47,064 in 2014 from 39,408 in 2013 (a rise of 19%),
33,655 in 2012 (17%), 33,719 in 2011, 32,712 in 2010 and 33,594 in 2009.

Last year, as many as 744 Dalits were murdered, up from 676 in 2013, 651 in 2012, 673 in 2011,
570 in 2010 and 624 in 2009. Haryana, where the Congress government led by Hooda was in
office till October last year, 21 people belonging to the SC community were murdered in 2014.
In fact, the rate of such crimes surpassed the national average in as many as 10 states both in
2014 (23.4 per lakh of their population), and 2013 (19.57). Rate of crime against SCs means
number of crimes reported against SCs per one lakh of their population.

Rapes of Dalit women stood at 2,233 in 2014, up from 2,073 in 2013, 1,576 in 2012, 1,557 in
2011, 1,349 in 2010 and 1,346 in 2009. Kidnappings and abductions too went up, barring in
2012 which saw a marginal decline. Against 755 kidnappingsabductions in 2014, there were 628
in 2013, 490 in 2012, 616 in 2011, 511 in 2010 and 512 in 2009.

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 8|Page

 ATROCITIES ON SCHEDULED TRIBE

The strategy of the State is to secure distributive justice and allocation of resources to support
programmes for social, economic and educational advancement of the weaker sections in general
and those of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in particular. The Scheduled Tribes in
India, constituting almost 8.6% of the total population, have not remained untouched from
various crimes. They have been victims of countless crimes, both because of their gullibility and
lack of hearing of their grievances. Looking at the year wise comparative data on the crimes
committed against Scheduled Tribes, from 2006 to 20013: it is seen that:

A total of 11,451 cases of crimes committed on persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes were
reported in the country during 2014 against 6,793 cases reported in 2013, indicating a substantial
increase of 68.6% during 2014 as compared to 2013. It may be mentioned that during 2014, out
of 11,451 cases of crime against SCs, 6,826 cases under various section of IPC along with the
SC/ST(POA) Act (atrocities cases i.e. where SC/ST(POA) Act applied), 4,522 cases under
various section of IPC wherein the SC/ST (POA) Act was not applied, 27 cases under other SLL
crimes and 12 cases of the Protection of Civil Rights Act were reported during 2014. Rajasthan
has reported the highest number of such cases 3,952 which accounted for 34.5% of the total

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 9|Page

11,451 cases reported in the country. Madhya Pradesh (2,279 cases) and Odisha (1,259 cases)
also had significant share of 19.9% and 11.0% respectively of total such crimes.

PREVENTION OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCES OF ATROCITIES AGAINST THE

MEMBERS OF SCHEDULED CASTE OR SCHEDULED TRIBE

DEFINITION OF ATROCITIES

Section 2 (1)(a) of the Act defines “atrocity”; “atrocity” means an offence punishable under
Section 3 of the Act deals with punishments for offences of atrocities.5

SECTION 3: POA, 1989

The offences of atrocities are given under section 3, for attracting section 3 it is enough that an
offence if committed against a member of SC or ST. Bare perusal of the provision shows that the
5
Vide Section 2(1)(a)

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 10 | P a g e

offence shows that the offence should be committed against the person belonging to SC or ST on
the ground that such a person was a member of SC or ST.6

(i) FORCING S.C OR S.T MEMBER TO DRINK OR EAT INEDIBLE OR OBNOXIOUS SUBSTANCE-
Wever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, forces a member of a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to drink or eat any inedible or obnoxious substance, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which not must be less than six months but which may
extend to five years and with fine.7

(ii) INJURY, INSULT OR ANNOYANCE-

Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, acts with intent to
cause injury, insult or annoyance to any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by
dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in his premises or
neighborhood, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term no less than six months but
which may extend to five years with fine.8

Injury: It is being defined under Section 44 of the IPC. The word “injury” denotes any harm
whether illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property. “Injury” is an act
contrary to law.9 It has the same meaning as “unlawful”.10

Injury is a wrong or damage to a man’s person or goods. The law punishes injuries; and so ab
hors them, that in, certain cases, it grants writ of anticipation for the prevention. But the law will
suffer private injury rather than a public evil, and the act of God, or of the Law of private injury
to none.”11 An injury, legally speaking, consist of wrong done to a person, or in other words, a
violation of his right.12

6
Kalasika Prashanta Kumar v. State of A.P, 2004 Cri LJ 1051 (AP)
7
Vide Section 3(1)(i)
8
Vide Section 3(1)(ii)
9
Swami Nayudu v. Subramania Mudali, (1864) 2 MHC 158.
10
Fazlur Rahman , ILR (1929) 9 Pat 725
11
Tomlin’s Law Dictionary, 4 rep. 124
12
Anisethi Vankatanna v. Rimalapudi Venkata Rao, AIR 1957 AP 453.

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 11 | P a g e

Annoyance: It includes any hurt done to a place, public or private, by placing anything thereon
that may breed infection, or by encroachment or such like means. 13 It means much the same thing
as nuisance.14 The word “annoyance” in Section 144 Cr.P.C. need not necessarily mean physical
annoyance also.15

Insult: An insult is never accompanied by violence, as at present used- this since being reserved
for assault. An insult is an indolent attack. It is more easy to imagine an affront where none were
intended than an insult. There can ever be an justification of an insult.16

(iii) FORCIBLY REMOVING CLOTHES OR PARADING NAKED OR WITH PAINTED FACE OR BODY-

Whoever, of being a member of SC or ST, forcibly removes clothes from the person of a
member of a SC or ST or parades him naked or with painted face or body or commits any similar
act which is derogatory to human dignity, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which must be not less than 6 months but which may extend to five years and with fine.17

(iv) WRONGFUL OCCUPATION OR CULTIVATION OF LAND-

If any person, not being a member of SC or a ST, wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land
owned by or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or gets the land allotted to him transferred, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for the term which may be not less than six months but which
may extend up to five years and with fine.18

(v) WRONGFUL DISPOSSESSION OR INTERFERENCE WITH ENJOYMENT-

Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, wrongfully dispossess
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with
the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water, shall be punishable with

13
Wharton Law Lexicon, 12 Cyc. 457.
14
22 Hen VIII. Ch.5.
15
Bandi Butchaiah, In Re, AIR 1952 Mad 61.
16
Raja Gopal Chettair v. Hindu Religious Endowment Board, AIR 1934 Mad 103
17
Vide Section 3(1)(iii)
18
Vide Section 3(1)(iv)

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 12 | P a g e

imprisonment for a term which must not be less than 6 months but which may extend to five
years and with fine.19A wrongful Act is an act forbidden as wrongful by law and is not an
improper act.20

(vi) COMPELLING OR ENTICING FOR ‘BEGAR’-

If any person, not being a member of SC or ST, compels or entices a member of a Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe to do begar or other similar forms of forced or bonded labour other
than any compulsory service for public purposes imposed by government, shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which must not be less than 6 months but which may extend to five
years and with fine.21

In Peoples Union for Democratic Right22, extraction of labour and services against payment
of less than the minimum wages held as forced labour and violation of Art. 23 of the
Constitution.

(vii) FORCING OR INTIMIDATING NOT TO VOTE-

Whoever not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, forces or intimidates a
member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe not to vote or to vote a particular candidate or
to vote in a manner other than that provided by law, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which must not be less than 6 months but which may extend to five years and with fine.23

“Intimidation” includes any words or acts intended and calculated to put any person in fear of
any injury or danger to himself or to any member of his family or to any persin in his

19
Vide Section 3(1)(v)
20
Swaminatha Pillai v. Parameshwaran, AIR 1967 Ker 194.
21
Vide Section 3(1)(vi), the before mentioned provision is in consonance of Art. 23 of the Constitution, which reads
as under:
23. Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour- (1) Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar
forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in
accordance with law.
(2) Nothing in this article, shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes and in
imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only on religion, race, caste or class or
any of them.
22
Peoples Union for democratic Right v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473.
23
Vide Section 3(1)(vii)

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 13 | P a g e

employment, or in fear of any injury to or loss of property, business, employment, or means of
living.24

(viii) INSTITUTION OF FALSE, MALICIOUS OR VEXATIOUS SUIT ETC.-

If any person not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, institutes false,
malicious, or vexatious suit or criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
must not be less than 6 months but which may extend to five years and with fine.25

(ix) FALSE OR FRIVOLOUS INFORMATION-

Whoever not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, gives any false or
frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his
lawful power to the inquiry or annoyance of a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which must not be less than 6 months but
which may extend to five years and with fine.26

(x) INTENTIONAL INSULT OR INTIMIDATION TO HUMILATE-

Whoever, not being a member of a SC or ST, intentionally insults or intimidates with the intent
to humiliate a member of SC or ST, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
must not be less than 6 months but which may extend to five years and with fine.27

(xi) ASSAULT OR USE OF FORCE TO S.C OR S.T WOMEN WITH INTENT TO DISHONOUR OR
OUTRAGE HER MODESTY-

If any person, not being a member of SC or ST, assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to
SC or ST with an intent to dishonor or outrage her modesty, he shall be punishable with

24
Whelon v. Fisher, 26 LR Ir 340; “Intimidation” is putting a man in fear with a view to inducing him to enter into a
contract or to pay money, or to do or to abstain from doing some other act, the act of making one timid or fearful, by
a declaration of an intention or determination to injury another by commission of some unlawful act. Payne v.
western, R Cal 49 Amp Rep 666.
25
Vide Section 3(1)(viii)
26
Vide Section 3(1)(ix)
27
Vide section 3(1)(x)

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 14 | P a g e

imprisonment for a term which must not be less than 6 months but which may extend to five
years and with fine.28

Assault means, an attempt with force and violence, corporal hurt to another as by
striking by him, with or without a weapon. But no words whatsoever, be they ever so provoking
can amount to an assault.29

(xii) SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF SC OR ST WOMEN-

Whoever, not being a member of SC or ST, being in a position to dominate will of a women
belonging to a SC or ST and uses that position to exploit her sexually to which she would not
have otherwise agreed, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which must not be less
than 6 months but which may extend to five years and with fine.30

(xiii) CORRUPTING OR FOULING WATER-

If any person, not being a member of SC or ST, corrupts or fouls the water of any spring,
reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by members of SC or ST so as to render it less fit
for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which must not be less than 6 months but which may extend to five years and with fine.31

(xiv) DENIAL OF CUSTOMARY RIGHT OF PASSAGE-

Whoever, not being a member of a SC or a ST any customary right of passage to a place of

public resort or obstructs such member so as to prevent him from using or having access to a
place of public resort to which other members of public or any section thereof have a right to use
or access to, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which must not be less than 6
months but which may extend to five years and with fine.32

28
Vide Section 3(1)(xi), the before mentioned provision is in consonance with section 354 of I.P.C, which reads as-
section 354- Assault or criminal force to woman with an intent to outrage her modesty- whoever assaults or uses
criminal force to any women intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he thereby outrage her modesty,
shall be imprisoned of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both.
29
Tomilins Law Dictionary, 1 Hawk, PCC 62,I.
30
Vide Section 3(1)(xii)
31
Vide Section 3(1)(xiii)
32
Vide Section 3(1)(xiv)

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 15 | P a g e

(xv) FORCING OR CAUSING MEMBER OF S.C OR S.T TO LEAVE HIS HOUSE, ETC-

If any person, not being a member of a SC or ST, forces or causes a member of a SC or ST,
forces or causes a member of a SC or ST to leave his house, village or other place of residence,
he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which must not be less than 6 months but
which may extend to five years and with fine.33

(xvi) GIVING OR FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE IN CAPITAL OFFENCE-

If any person not being a member of a SC or a ST, gives or fabricates false evidence intending
thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any member of a SC or ST
to be convicted of an offence which is capital by the law for the time being in force, he shall be
punished with imprisonment for life or with fine, and if an innocent member of a SC or ST be
convicted and executed in consequence of such false or fabricated evidence, the person who
gives or fabricates such false evidence shall be punished with death.34

(xvii) GIVING OR FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE FOR 7 YEARS OR
MORE-

Whoever, not being a member of a SC or ST, gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby
to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any member of a Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe to be convicted of an offence which is not capital but punishable with
imprisonment for the term of seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment for
a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend up to seven years or
upwards with fine.35
33
Vide Section 3(1)(xv)
34
Vide Section 3(2)(i), “Giving False Evidence” is defined under Section 191 of I.P.C.- whoever, being legally
bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make an declaration
upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not
believe to be true, is said to five false evidence.
35
Vide Section 3(2)(ii), offences under the following sections of the IPC are punishable with imprisonment for 7
years or more-sec 115(abetment of offence punishable wit death or imprisonment for life), 118(concealing design to
commit offence punishable with death or life imprisonment), 119 (public servant concealing design to commit
offence which it is his duty to prevent), 120 (concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment),
121(waging or attempting to wage war or abetting waging of war against the Government of India), 122(collecting
arms etc. with intention of waging war against the Government of India), sec.123 (concealing with an intent to
facilitate design to wage war), Sec.124(Assaulting President, Governor etc.), Sec.124-A(Sedition),sec 125(waging
war against any Asiatic power in alliance with the Government of India),sec126(committing depredation on

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 16 | P a g e

(xviii) MISCHIEF BY THE FIRE OR ANY EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCE FOR CAUSING DAMAGE TO
PROPERTY-

If any person, not being a member of a SC or ST, commits mischief by fire or any explosive
substance intending to cause or knowing to be likely that he will thereby cause damage to any
property belonging to the member of SC or ST, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than 6 months but may extend to seven years and with fine.36

(xix) MISCHEIF BY FIRE OR ANY EXPLOSIVE CAUSING DAMAGE TO PLACE OF WORSHIP-

If any person, not being a member of a SC or ST, commits mischief by fire or any explosive
substance intending to cause or knowing to be likely that he will thereby cause, destruction of
any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a place of human dwelling or as
a place of custody of the property by a member of SC or ST, shall be punishable for life and with
fine.37

(xx) OFFENCE UNDER I.P.C. PUNISHABLE WITH IMPRISONMENT OF 10 YEARS OR MORE-

If any person, not being a member of a SC or ST, commits any offence under the IPC punishable
with imprisonment for the term of 10 years or more against a person or property on ground that
such person is a member of SC or ST or such property belongs to such member shall be
punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.38

(xxi) CAUSING DISAPPEARANCE OF EVIDENCE-

Whoever, not being a member of a SC or ST, knowingly or having reason to believe that an
offence has been committed under this Chapter, causes any evidence of the Commission of the
offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or that

territories of power at peace with Government of India),etc.

36
Vide Section 3(2)(iii), Section 425, I.P.C., on ‘mischief’ may also be noticed at this juncture- whoever, with intent
to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the
destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes
its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits mischief.
37
Vide Section 3(2)(iv)
38
Vide Section 3(2)(v)

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 17 | P a g e

with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to
be false, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence.39

(xxii) OFFENCE BY PUBLIC SERVANT-

If any person, not being a member of SC or ST, being a public servant, commits an offence
under this section, he shall be punishable with the imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than one year but which may extend to the punishment provided for that offence. 40 Thus, the
Legislature has widened the scope to prevent the SC and ST form the atrocities of the non-SC
and ST members of the Society. As the punishments of the said offences are stringent it act as a
determent to safe the SC and ST for the atrocities they se to undergo before.

SPECIAL COURT AND EXCLUSIVE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

OF ATROCITIES

Special Court being a Court of Session, complaint cannot be straight away placed before such
Court since cognizance can be taken by committal Magistrate only.41 The object of establishing
the Special Courts is for the purpose of providing speedy trial. 42 Section 14 of the Act provides
that the State Government shall by notification in the official Gazette specify for each district a
Court of Session to be Special Court to try the offence under this Act with the concurrence of the
39
Vide Section 3(2)(vi), Section 201, I.P.C., on causing disappearance of evidence may also be noticed:
sec.201- Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender-whoever,
knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed , causes any evidence of the commission of
that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention
gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;
If a capital offence- shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with
death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall
also be liable to fine
If punishment with imprisonment for life- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, be punished
with either punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years and shall
also be liable to fine.
If punishable with less than ten years imprisonment- if the offence is punishable for less than 10 years, shall be
punished with the imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for the term which may extend to one-
forth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for offence, or with fine, or both.
40
Vide Section 3(2)(vii)
41
Balaram v. State of Rajasthan, RLW 2003 (1)Raj. 132. offence under the Act cannot be taken cognizance straight
away by the special court without committal, Raju Reddy v. State of A.P, 2005Cr.L.J. where investigation was
conducted not be specified officer under Rule 7 and cognizance was taken by special judge straight away without
committal, trail is initiated, Hanmathu v. State of A.P, 2004 Cr.L.J 4087.
42
R.Raju v. State of A.P, AIR 1967 SC 1599.

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 18 | P a g e

Chief Justice of the High Court. The Special Court constituted under this Act is a Court of
original criminal jurisdiction and it can try offence under IPC committed under the course of
same transaction along with the offences under Section 3 of the Act if the Conditions are
satisfied.43 Special Court being a Court of original Jurisdiction shall have all the powers under
Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to take cognizance of offence without a
committal order.44

In view of the procedure laid down under Section 14 of the Act, the status of Sessions Court
ceases to exist when the said Court is notified as Special Court and Sec. 193 Cr.P.C., would not
be applicable to such Special Court.45 Offences under the Act are exclusively triable by Special
Court created under Section 14. However, both the Special Court and the Court of Magistrate
empowered under Section 190 Cr.P.C. can deal with such cases at pre-trial Stage.46

SEC.14 OF THE S.C AND S.T (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 AND SEC.193 OF THE Cr.P.C.-

Section 193 of Cr.P.C imposes an interdict on all courts of sessions against taking cognizance of
any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction. It can take cognizance if only the case has been
committed to it by a magistrate as provided, by the Code and hence Special Court can take
cognizance only on committal.47

EXCLUSIVE SPECIAL COURT ESSENIALLY A COURT OF SESSION-

Court under the Act is essentially a Court of Session and it can take cognizance f the offence
when the case id committed to it by the Magistrate in accordance with the provision with the
provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure.48

DELAY IN LODGINH F.I.R.-

43
In re, S.C and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, 1993 (1)ALT(Cri.)52.
44
D. Reddy v. State of U.P., 1996 Cr.L.J 3271. It is not necessary to examine all the witnesses under se202(2)
proviso in as much as it is not applicable special Court being a Court of original juriscdiction enjoys all the power
which a criminal Court having original Jurisdiction enjoys, Madhava Reddy v. State of A.P., 1996(1)ALT (Cri.)
452.
45
State of H.P. v. Balak Ram, II (1998) CCR 591.
46
Bhuralal v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 Cr.L.J. 3552.
47
Binay v. State of Kerela, 2001(1) KLT 125.
48
Vidyadharan v. State of Kerela, 2003(8) SC 121.

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 19 | P a g e

In Vidyadharan v. State of Kerela, it was held that there cannot be suspicious only on the ground
of delay in lodging FIR especially when delay has been properly explained.

COURT OF SESSION-

The Court of Special Judge constituted under the Act cannot be describe as a Court of Session.
He is empowered to try the offence no as a session judge, but as special judge who is specially
empowered in this behalf. He can take cognizance of the offence directly, without being
committed by the Special Court.49 Bail application can be disposed off by the session Court or
Additional Sessions Court though not specifically designated, since there is no trial at that stage
for the accused.50

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION OF THE VICTIMS OF SUCH ATROCITIES

According to the preamble of the SC/ST Act, it is an Act to prevent the commission of offences
of atrocities against SC/STs, to provide for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for
the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences. The Madhya Pradesh High Court
also had the same view and observed in the case of Dr. Ram Krishna Balothia v. Union of India51
that the entire scheme of the SC/ST Act is to provide protection to the members of the scheduled
castes and scheduled tribes and to provide for Special Court and speedy trial of the offences. The
Act contains affirmative measures to weed out the root cause of atrocities, which has denied
SC/STs basic civil rights. The Act has addressed the problem the regarding the dispensation of
justice, but what the failed to deal with is the problem of ‘rehabilitation’. There is mention of
rehabilitation under Section 21(2)(iii), but there are no provision addressing the same. As it has
been stated earlier that victims of atrocities are on a different level when compared to victims of
other crimes, hence there should be special provision for the same. According to the report
submitted by the National Commission for Review and Working of the Constitution 52 victims of
atrocities and their families should be provided with full financial and any other support in order
to make them economically self-reliant without their having to seek wage employment from their
very oppressors or classes of oppressors. Also it would be the duty of the State to immediately
49
Dara Singh v. Tej Kaur, 2000 Cr.L.J.. 237 (Kar.)
50
State v. Mahlini, 2001 Cr.L.J 237 (Kar.)
51
AIR 1994 MP 143
52
In 2002 the conviction rate was a mere 2 percent. Report by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 20 | P a g e

take over the educational needs of the children of such victims and provide for the cost of their
food and maintenance. SC/STs constitute 68 percent of the total rural population. According to
the 1991 Agricultural census a large number of SC/STs are marginal farmers compared to the
other sections of the society and because of this the number of cultivators are going down. In
other words the landlessness is increasing at a faster rate among SC/STs. At the same time the
number of SC/ST workers as agricultural labourer is increasing at a faster rate when compared to
other sections of the society. This basically implies that after losing their land holdings SC/ST
cultivators are becoming agriculture labourers. Loss of land, on the one hand, is caused by
atrocities making the more vulnerable. This in turn fuels and promotes continuance of atrocities
and untouchability. Marginalization is one of the worst forms of oppression. It expelles a whole
category of people from useful participation in the society and therefore potentially subjected to
material depravation and this could even lead to extermination. Moreover, this leads to the state
of powerlessness which perhaps is best described negatively; the powerless lack authority, status
and a sense of self.53 Moreover, every right has three types of duties:

 Duties to avoid deprivation.

 Duties to protect from deprivation
 Duties to aid the deprived.

Though the SC/ST Act does cover the first two duties but totally ignores the third one; duty to
aid the deprived. Hence, it is necessary to make the SC/STs self dependent.

OTHER MATTERS CONNECTED THERETO THE ATROCITIES AGAINST

SCHEDULED CASTE AND SHEDULED TRIBE

SEC.438 OF Cr.P.C NOT APPLICABLE TO THE S.C AND S.T (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989

In Uma Aarsay v. State of M.P.54, it was held that granting, anticipatory bail was unjust illegal
and perverse. Section 18 of the Act specifically states that the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C
are not applicable to persons committing an offence under the Act. Provisions of Section 438
Cr.P.C cannot be said to be applicable in each and every case. Where the allegations don’t make
53
Iris Young, “Justice and Politics of Difference”. Amita Dhanda (compiled by), “Law and Poverty Reading
Material – IV Semester B.A.B.L (Hons)”, 1st edition 2006, p.29
54
2003 (1) MPLJ 226

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 21 | P a g e

out any prima facie offence punishable under any of the provisions of the Act, the bar under
section 18 is inapplicable and the provisions of sec. 438 Cr.P.C can be availed of. 55 Section 18 of
the Act creates a bar and is not violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the
Constitution of India.56

EXCLUSION OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 438, Cr.P.C. OR ‘ANTICIPATORY BAIL’-

This Section emphatically mandates that Section 438, Cr.P.C. shall not apply in relation to any
case involving arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under the
Act.57 It is clear from the provisions of the Section 18 of the Act that whenever there is an
accusation involving the arrest of the person(s) under the offences defined under the Atrocities

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 18-

(I) WHETHER SEC.18 IS VIOLATIVE OF ART. 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OR NOT?

In State of M.P. vs. Ram Krishna Balothia 58, the Supreme Court the Supreme Court has upheld
the constitutional validity of Section 18, as follows:

“It is undoubtedly true that Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., which is available to an accused
in respect of offences under the Penal Code, is available to an accused in respect of offences
under the Penal Code, is not available in respect of offences under the said Act. But can this be
considered as violative of Art. 14. The offences enumerated under the said Act fall into a
separate and special class. Article 17 of the Constitution expressly deals with abolition of
‘Untouchability’ and forbids its practice in any form. It also provides that enforcement of any
disability arising out of “untouchability” shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
The offences, therefore, which are enumerated under Section 3(1) arise out of the practice of
“Untouchability”. It is in this context that certain special provisions have been made in the said
Act, including the impugned provision under the Section 18 which is before us. The exclusion of
section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the connection with offences under the said
Act as to be viewed in the context of the prevailing social conditions which give rise to such
55
Thavan v. State of T.N, 1988 (1) Crimes 310.
56
Chikkapa v. State of Karnataka, 2000 (2) KLT 280.
57
Section 438- di
58
AIR 1995 SC 1198.

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 22 | P a g e

offences, and the apprehension that perpetrators of such atrocities are likely to threaten and
intimidate their victims and prevent or obstruct them in the prosecution of these offenders, if the
offenders are allowed to avail of anticipatory bail ”

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention
of Atrocities) Bill 1995, pointed out that when members of the SC and ST asserts their rights and
demand statutory protection, vested interests to cow them down and terrorize them. In these
circumstances, if anticipatory bail is not made available to persons who commit such offences,
such a denial cannot be considered as unreasonable or violative of Art.14, as these offences form
distinct class by them and cannot be compared with any other offences.

(II) WHETHER SEC. 18 IS VIOLATIVE OF ART. 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OR NOT?

Article 21 of the Constitution which protects the life and personal liberty of every person in this
Country. Art.21 enshrines the right to live with human dignity, a precious right to which every
human being is entitled; those who have been for centuries, denies this right, more so. The
offences which are enumerated under Sec. 3 are offences which, to say the least, denigrate the
members of the SC and ST in the eyes of society, and prevent them from leading a life of dignity
and self-respect. Such offences are committed to humiliate and subjugate members of SC and ST
with the view to keeping them in a state of servitude. These offences constitute a separate class
and cannot be compared with offences under the Penal Code.

DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT

The State Government must take such measures, subject to the rules framed by the Central
Government, as may be necessary for the effective implementation of this Act. 59 Sub-section (1)
to such rules as the Central Government may make in this behalf, the State Government shall
take such measures as be necessary for the effective implementation of the Act.

Sub-section (2)60 says that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
provisions such measures may include:

59
Vide Sub-section (1) of the Section 21.
60
Vide Section 21(2)

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 23 | P a g e

 (1) The provision for adequate facilities including legal aid, to the persons subjected to the
atrocities to enable themselves of justice
(2) The provision for traveling and maintenance expenses to witnesses, including the victims
atrocities during investigation and trial of offences under this Act.
(3) The provision for the economic and social rehabilitation of the victims of the atrocities.
(4) The appointment of the officers for initiating or exercising supervision over prosecution
for the contravention of the provision of the Act.
(5) The setting up of committees at such appropriate levels as the State Government may
think fit to assist the government in formulation or implementation of such measures.
(6) Provisions for a periodic survey or the working of the provision of this Act with a view to
suggesting measures for the better implementation of the provision of this Act
(7) The identification of the areas where the members of the SC and ST are likely to be
subjected to atrocities and adoption of such measures so as to ensure safety for such
members.

Sub-section (3) says that the Central Government shall take such steps as may be necessary to
co-ordinate the measures taken by the State Government under the Sub-Section (1).61

Sub-Section (4) says that the Central Government shall, every year, place on the table of each
House of Parliament a report on the measures taken by itself and by the State Government in
pursuance of the provisions of this Section.

THE S.C & S.T (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) RULES, 1995

Where the investigation is conducted by sub-inspector of Police which contravenes Rule 7 of the
Rules, offences under SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, quashed but no grounds to
quash charges and Indian Penal Code and hence PRC to be numbered as CC and to proceed with
trial.62

In Ramchandraiah vs. State of AP63, it was held that where investigation was done by an
officer below the rank of DSP prior to the coming into force of Rule 7 of the Rules, such
61
Vide Section. 21(3)
62
Venkateshwara Reddy v. Sub-Divisional Police Officer Kandukar, 2005 (1) ALT (Cri.) 245
63
2005(1) ALD (Cri.) 30

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 24 | P a g e

investigation can not be said to be illegal. Investigation done by Inspector of Police is held to be
immaterial, because as under rule 7 of the Rules a Police Officer not below the rank of DSP shall
investigate the offence.64 Unless the investigation as been made or shall be made in accordance
with section 9 of the Act, read with rule 7 of the Rules, cognizance of the offence under Sec. 3 of
the Act can not be taken by Special Judge.65 Rule 7 is mandatory.66

RE-INVESTIGATION TO BE DIRECTED IF INVESTIGATION NOT DONE BY COMPETANT

OFFICER. –

In Shatrughan Shravan Kamble67, the Bombay HC pointed out that there was conflict of opinion
in the judgment delivered by the two single judges of the court. It was held that the SC & ST
(Prevention of atrocities) Act 1989 and Rule 7 of the Rules of 1995 framed under the said act
were under consideration. Rule 7 was framed by the central Government & was made mandatory
& non-compliance therewith vitiated the entire investigation.

64
A. Sasikumar v. Supriendent of Police, III(1998) CCR 517 (Mad.)
65
Juha Behera v. State of Orissa, 2000(2) Crimes 385.
66
Sushil Basantia v. State of Orissa, 2003(2) Crimes (Ori) 37.
67
1999 (2) Mah LJ 743.

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 25 | P a g e

 CONCLUSION

In discussing the demands of social justice today, the priority of critical reasoning cannot but
be central. But how do we analyze these demands. In probing the idea of social justice, it is
important, I would argue, to distinguish between an arrangement-focused view of justice, and a
realization-focused understanding of justice. Sometimes justice is conceptualised in terms of
certain organizational arrangements, some institutions, some regulations, some behavioral
rules. The active presence of which indicates that justice is being done. The question to ask here
is whether the demands of justice must be only about getting the institutions and rules right.68

India has a large population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. They are identified to be
most exploited class for obvious reasons of socio-economic inequalities. Perhaps it can be stated
that abject poverty, stark ignorance and blatant illiteracy justify their demand for social justice.
They have lost their will to resist to struggle and to fight. Even some of them do not know their
rights and facilities. And even if some do have the knowledge they do not possess not only the
courage but also the will and the financial resources for asserting their legal rights against the
powerful sections of the society, who have been traditionally oppressing and exploiting them.

Prior to the Independence, British rule had a mixed impact on the different ethnic groups in the
country where in status was considered important in law. The colonial enforcers of law and order
meted out even-handed justice to all those under their rule. Their actions were colored by their
perception of the local conditions and also the imperial fiat. Scheduled castes and Scheduled
Tribes were kept under strict surveillance either by village servants or by constabulary
supervisors. Physical violence and torture was openly resorted to under the common myth that
those down-trodden people are born hardened criminals. They are occasionally subjected to
mercy less beatings and starving for a mere suspicion. Quite often their women folk were
molested in front of their men folk only in order to extract a forced confession on the alleged
offence. If at all, some one raised his voice and came forward with complaints, it was being

68
Excerpted from Amartya Sen’s ,Hiren Mukherjee lecture in the Lok Sabha, organised by the Speaker, August 12,
2008

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 26 | P a g e

shrugged off as exaggeration. After independence although conditions did not continue in the
same manner, yet atrocities in different forms did not stop.

In spite of ameliorative constitutional and Legislative safeguards, for protection of Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes, inhuman and insulting attitudes of men continue and promises for
its eradication continue to be empty shibboleth. Even after 60 years of independence, these
SC/ST people are, perhaps, mesmerized by the hypnotic effect of words and abstractions that are
propagated by knavish thought process of Indian politicians. Occasionally it has been seen that
these SC/ST people being victims of chill penury and in order to save themselves from starvation
deaths, are compelled to subject themselves to distress sale of labour and some how take out
their daily existence. The Supreme Court while considering one such situation in Kishen
Pattanayak v. State of Orissa and Indian Peoples Front v. State of Orissa69 (more popularly
known as Food petitions), held that, such situation arises only due to utter negligence and
callousness of the administration. Justice M.M. Dutta while concurring with Justice K.N. Saikia
further went to say that, such a predicament of human beings facing the prospects of starvation
death, distress sale of crops, labour and even the children and the helplessness of those who are
unable to organize the minimum basic necessities of life can easily be described as too grim a
reality for any kind of detached debate.

The Ministry of Social Justice recently proposed important amendments in the SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 to simplify the process of hearings and strengthen
investigation mechanisms. The recent move by the Ministry of Social Justice to go for important
amendments in the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (POA)
1989 supposedly to simplify the process of hearings and strengthen investigation mechanisms
has largely gone unnoticed. There are certain amendments which I suggest to be made in the
impugned Act such as Section 14 of the Act which would facilitate establishment of special
courts for speedy trials in case of atrocities against scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. It is
also being proposed that, in case of serious offences like murder and rapes against these
marginalized sections, a detailed report should be sent to the Centre and the National
Commission on SCs and STs within four days of filing of First Information Reports.

69
AIR 1989 SC 677

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 27 | P a g e

It is expected that the special courts would be authorized to admit cases under these Acts
directly. As of now the special courts cannot directly entertain cases under these Acts without
following committal proceedings which could cause further delays in trials. Close observers of
the SC/ST human rights situation in the country would comment that the proposed amendments
on behalf of the government were long overdue. In an inter-state council meet called to
deliberate on the specific issue of dalit rage in the aftermath of the Khairlanji killings the prime
minister himself had admitted that the continuing atrocities against weaker sections is a national
disgrace in a civilized society.70 Ths, it is suggested that when there is a grave offence of
atrocities is done against a member of SC and ST the case should not be registered under weaker
sections of IPC.

While the proposals being contemplated are welcome, the point worth deliberating is whether the
main problem in curbing atrocities against SC and ST’s is the lacunae in laws or something else.
The necessity for enactment of this Act had arisen because, under prevailing conditions, the
Protection of Civil Rights Act (1955) and normal provisions of the Indian Penal Code were
found to be inadequate to provide safeguards. This is important because when the SC and ST
(POA) Act was enacted in 1989, it had proved to be a pioneer in many ways. It provided for not
only appointment of special courts, punishment for neglect of duties of officials, forfeiture of
property of the perpetrators, confiscation of arms from the dominant castes in the area, but even
asked for distribution of arms to the downtrodden. But it is disturbing to note that all the radical
provisions supposedly formulated to ensure justice to the SCs and STs, to quote Justice V K
Krishna Iyer71 'proved to be impotent and ineffectual in practice', he further adds that...the aim
behind these attempts was to have a more effective, comprehensive and punitive provisions of
law. However, the ruling classes saw to it that, at the functional level, the legislations were
paper tigers.
And Justice Krishna Iyer is not the only person who thought along these lines. There have been
innumerable reports detailing how the local police in connivance with the perpetrators
themselves, sabotages implementation of laws basically meant to protect the SC and ST. It is
noticed that instead of filing cases under the POA act, it prefers filing cases under the normal
70
The Hindu, December 10, 2006
71
In a Foreword to a book Dalit Utpidan aur Vidhik Upchar, by P L Mimroth, November 2000, Delhi,

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 28 | P a g e

provisions of the Indian Penal Code, which facilitates release of the accused on bail easily. It also
facilitates filing of counter cases against the victims, so that a compromise could be reached. The
Third Report of the NPC72 had rightly underlined how false criminal cases are sometimes
engineered merely for the sake of making arrests to humiliate and embarrass enemies of the
complainant, in league with the police for corrupt reasons. A related phenomenon is the way in
which the powers that be take steps to deter enlightened people from fighting for the
constitutionally granted rights of SC and ST.

Human Rights Watch Report73 shares details of how the criminalization of social activism takes
place in India. In its much acclaimed report Broken People - Caste Violence Against India’s
Untouchables74 Human Rights Watch repeats how State agents have acted directly and
forcefully against those attempting to claim their rights. Dalit activists throughout the country are
charged with being terrorists, threats to national security and habitual offenders.

The Report on Prevention of Atrocities against Scheduled Castes 75 similarly underlined the way
the State has failed in this respect on several fronts while ensuring justice to these sections.
These include failure to effectively implement the laws relating to atrocities against SCs and STs
which is reflected both in respect of preventing violence from taking place as well as in the
inability to punish perpetrators of violence after the crime is committed; failure to act against its
own agencies involved in the commission of violence and failure to strengthen the watchdog
institutions. The failure of the State vis-à-vis mobilisation of caste Hindus in favour of social
democracy embedded in the Constitution and various laws and state policies is palpable. This
has, in turn, created ambivalence in its intentions and contradictions in its actions.
The Sixth Report of the National Commission for SCs and STs (1999-2000 and 2000-2001) had
expressed its deep sense of dissatisfaction over the way all these measures are implemented.
While commenting that the number of cases registered under Prevention of Civil Rights Act and
SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been showing a downward trend indicating a
healthy development, it exposes the way this reduction in the number of cases has been arrived

72
New Delhi :GOI, 1980
73
(Vol 4, no. 15, June 1992)
74
1999
75
NHRC, 2004, Delhi

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 29 | P a g e

at. But from its reviews with various state governments the Commission is of the view that a
large number of cases go unregistered, mainly because of the reluctance on part of the police
officers to register the cases and also because of lack of awareness among the members of these
communities about the provisions of these acts, reads the preface of the report.

A realistic survey and understanding of the current malady of injustices which the social order
inflicts on the numerous voiceless SC/ST victims, would certainly deliver relief to them. The
innovative judicial processes like Public Interest Litigation or Social Action Writs would
certainly respond to the problem of atrocities against SC/ST members with sensitized sanity. The
judiciary should come forward to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction over the Executive
instrumentalities for informing and animating the broader sense of justice, equity and good
conscience; otherwise the cumbersome judicial process will shower cruelty rather than sympathy
to those disadvantaged class of SC/ST members. The SC/ST problem is essentially a rural
problem and hence strategies of social action must be directed to rural areas, which can be done
with more facility to develop the sense of social responsibility i.e., by awakening the social
conscience of rural people. It is also necessary to remember that neither mere money nor mere
constitutional provisions are adequate to secure socio-economic justice to these people but what
is necessary is that the cooperation from dedicated bands of social workers who can ameliorate
their problems.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS REFERRED:-

 Bakshi, P.M., The Constitution of India, 7th Edition, 2005, Universal Law Publishing and
Co
 M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law(Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur,5th edn, Rep 2005)

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 30 | P a g e

  Narayana, P.S., The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, 5th edn, Googia Law Agency,
2006.
 Shukla, Nigamendra, The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Arocities) Act, 1989, Edn 2nd, Modern Law Publication, 2009
 Swarup, Jagadish, Constitution of India, Vol 3, 2nd edn., Modern Law Publication.
 V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India (Eastern Book Company,10th edn,2003)

ACTS REFERRED:-

 Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
 Indian Penal Code, 1860
 Probation of the Offenders Act, 1950
 The Protection of the Civil Rights Act, 1955

REPORTS:

 SC and ST, First Commission Report, 1995

 NCRB annual report for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015.

CASES REFERRED:

 A. Sasikumar v. Supriendent of Police, III(1998) CCR 517 (Mad.)

 Anisethi Vankatanna v. Rimalapudi Venkata Rao, AIR 1957 AP 453
 Balaram v. State of Rajasthan, RLW 2003 (1)Raj. 132.
 Bandi Butchaiah, In Re, AIR 1952 Mad 61.
 Bhuralal v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 Cr.L.J. 3552.
 Binay v. State of Kerela, 2001(1) KLT 125.
 Chikkapa v. State of Karnataka, 2000 (2) KLT 280.
 D. Reddy v. State of U.P., 1996 Cr.L.J 3271
 Dara Singh v. Tej Kaur, 2000 Cr.L.J.. 237 (Kar.)
 Dr. Ram Krishna Balothia v. Union of India, AIR 1994 MP 143

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 31 | P a g e

  Fazlur Rahman , ILR (1929) 9 Pat 725
 Hadibandhu Behera v. Banamali Sahu, AIR 1961 Ori 33
 In re, S.C and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, 1993 (1)ALT(Cri.)52.
 Juha Behera v. State of Orissa, 2000(2) Crimes 385.
 Kalasika Prashanta Kumar v. State of A.P, 2004 Cri LJ 1051 (AP)
 Peoples Union for democratic Right v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473.
 R.Raju v. State of A.P, AIR 1967 SC 1599
 Raja Gopal Chettair v. Hindu Religious Endowment Board, AIR 1934 Mad 103
 Ramchandraiah vs. State of AP, 2005(1) ALD (Cri.) 30
 Shatrughan Shravan Kamble, 1999 (2) Mah LJ 743.
 State of H.P. v. Balak Ram, II (1998) CCR 591
 State of M.P. vs. Ram Krishna Balothia, AIR 1995 SC 1198.
 State v. Mahlini, 2001 Cr.L.J 237 (Kar.)
 Sushil Basantia v. State of Orissa, 2003(2) Crimes (Ori) 37.
 Swami Nayudu v. Subramania Mudali, (1864) 2 MHC 158.
 Swaminatha Pillai v. Parameshwaran, AIR 1967 Ker 194
 Thavan v. State of T.N, 1988 (1) Crimes 310.
 Uma Aarsay v. State of M.P., 2003 (1) MPLJ 226
 Venkateshwara Reddy v. Sub-Divisional Police Officer Kandukar, 2005 (1) ALT (Cri.)
245
 Vidyadharan v. State of Kerela, 2003(8) SC 121.

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 32 | P a g e