Political & Economic Notes:
Onslaught on the Rights of Dalit and Other Oppressed People
The March 20 th, 2018 Judgment of the Supreme Court Bench of Justice A. K. Goel and U. U. Lalit in a case under the SCs and STs( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is a serious onslaught on the decades’ long struggle of Dalit and other oppressed people for the legal protections from the crimes and atrocities that are being perpetrated against them for generations.
Directing the Govt. to amend the sec. 18 of the Act, the judgment had set some directives, guidelines and made some observations. They include:
1. A public servant can be arrested under the Act only with the written permission of their appointing authority. In the case of private employees, the Deputy Superintendent of Police should conduct a preliminary inquiry before the FIR is registered to check whether the case will fall within the parameters of the Atrocities Act or if it is frivolous or motivated.
2. The 1989 Act penalises the casteist insults and even denies anticipatory bail to the suspected offenders. The Law is therefore used to rob a person of his personal liberty merely on the unilateral word of the complainant...... The anticipatory bail should be allowed if the accused is able to prima facie prove that the complaint against him is malafide.
Any deviation from the court directions would automatically lead to the contempt of Supreme Court.
3. Past three decades have seen complainants – who belonged to the marginalised sections of the society – use the SCs / STs( POA) Act, 1989 to exact“ vengeance” and satisfy the vested interests.
4. Instead of blurring caste lines, the Act had been misused to
May- 2018 file false complaints to promote caste hatred. The current working of Atrocities Act may even“ perpetuate” casteism if it is not brought in line and court needs to intervene to check“ the false implication of innocent citizens on caste lines”
5. Innocent citizens are termed accused,.... The legislature never intended to use the Atrocities Act as an instrument to blackmail or wreck personal vengeance.
6. The Act cannot be converted into a charter for exploitation or oppression by any unscrupulous person or by the police for extraneous reasons against other citizens, irrespective of caste or religion, is against the guarantee of the Constitution. This Court must enforce such a guarantee. Law should not result in caste hatred.
The Court said that a Public servant finds it difficult to give adverse remarks against employees for fear that they may be charged under the Act.
These directives or guidelines or observations are a clear indictment of the Act; the way it is enforced and the way the victims of atrocities and crimes are using or misusing the Act. The comments or observations of the court are totally in a bad taste. They sound like the utterances of a politician who is under a strong influence of ideas that go against the very theme and spirit of the Act. The judges here did not confine themselves to examine the specific point of the complaint and give their verdict, but elevated themselves to the position of policy makers and had revealed their reactionary bent of mind.
The statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1989 Act noted that the vested interests try to terrorise Dalits whenever they assert their rights. The Act had excluded the right of anticipatory bail to the accused keeping in view the special nature of crimes Dalits encounter in their life. The Supreme Court simply ignored the realities of society as well as the experiences of people when it directed the amendment of Sec. 18 of the Act to allow the anticipatory bail to the accused under the Act.
The Court directive that no action can be taken against a public servant under the Act without a written permission from the appointing authority and a private citizen accused of similar crimes can be arrested only after an enquiry by the Deputy Superintendent of Police defeat the very purpose of the Act. It is difficult to believe that the judges are unaware of the fact that in a caste – ridden Indian Society it is too difficult for a poor labourer, attender, clerk, employee from a Dalit or S. T community to complain and get permission from the higher authorities to file a case and pursue it. Similarly, in a country where the repressive machinery is in direct collusion with the exploiting classes and bureaucracy and involved in committing or shielding the crimes and atrocities against the Dalits and STs, it will not be difficult to understand the fate of a complaint if it has to pass through the police scrutiny.
Various laws enacted in India claiming to protect the rights and lives of Dalits and other oppressed people had come after going through prolonged sufferings and as a product of struggles by the people. The Untouchability( Offences) Act came in 1955. It was renamed as Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976. But, after a lapse of 13 years, the rulers had come with the admission that
15