Tuesday, 19 July 2011

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Emblem of India.svg
Citation Official Act
Enacted by Parliament of India
Date enacted 11 September 1989
Summary
Prevention of the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes

The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted by the Parliament of India, in order to prevent atrocities against Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The purpose of the Act was to help the social inclusion of Dalits into Indian society, but the Act has failed to live up to its expectations.[citation needed]

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Special Court

Special Court Justice Ramaswamy observed in the case of State of Karnataka v. Ingale [1] that more than seventy-five percent of the cases brought under the SC/ST Act end in acquittal at all levels. The situation has not improved much since 1992 according to the figures given by the 2002 Annual Report dealing with SC/ST Act (of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment)[2] Of the total cases filed in 2002 only 21.72% were disposed of, and, of those, a mere 2.31% ended in conviction. The number of acquittals is 6 times more than the number of convictions and more than 70 percent of the cases are still pending.[3]

[edit] Biases

Going through the normal judicial system is self degrading for any dalit. This is because of the still existing biases of the court judges. One example is the conduct of an Allahabad High Court judge who had his chambers "purified" with water from the ‘ganga jal’ because a dalit judge had previously sat in that chamber before him.[4] Another example is the case of State of Karnataka v. Ingale.[1] The State of Karnataka had charged five individuals with violating the SC/ST Act. At trial, four witnesses testified that the defendants had threatened dalits with a gun in order to stop them from taking water from a well. The defendants told the dalits that they had no right to take water, because they were untouchables. The trial judge convicted all of the defendants. On appeal, the Additional Sessions judge confirmed the conviction of three defendants but acquitted two. On further appeal to the High Court, the judge acquitted all the defendants after rejecting the testimony of the four dalit witnesses. The dalits finally got relief from the Supreme Court.

[edit] Contradictions

The legal regime is fraught with contradictions. While the legal text is explicit in seeking remedies, the implementation of the text appears to evade actual performance. Laws and legal processes are not self executing; they depend on the administrative structure and the judiciary with the anticipation that the social attitudes are driven by notions of equity, social justice and fair play.[5] However, the increasingly indifferent responses of those involved in the implementation of laws protecting the weak, the oppressed and the socially disadvantaged have persisted over the years and the system has failed to provide for self-correction. The problem is that the victims of atrocities suffer not only bodily and mental pain but also feelings of insecurity and social avoidance which is not present for the victims of other crimes. If the judge delegated to protect them shows indifference, it further aggravates their already vulnerable position.

[edit] Investigation

Section 23 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act authorises the Central Government to frame rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act. It was the drawing power from this section that the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules of 1995 were framed. According to Rule 7(1)[6] investigation of an offence committed under the SC/ST Act cannot be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). Various High Courts have vitiated the trail based on the above rule and have improperly set aside the order of conviction.[7]

[edit] Rank of investigating officer

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in D. Ramlinga Reddy v. State of AP,[8] took the position that provisions of Rule 7 are mandatory and held that investigation under the SC/St Act has to be carried out by only an officer not below the rank of DSP. An investigation carried out and charge sheet filed by an incompetent officer is more than likely to be quashed. Similarly, the Madras High Court in M. Kathiresam v. State of Tamil Nadu[9] held that investigation conducted by an officer other than a DSP is improper and bad in law and proceedings based on such an investigation are required to be quashed. The Courts without taking into consideration the inadequacies of the State, have been punishing SC/STs for the same. Shri Pravin Rashtrapal, Member of Parliament rightly pointed out that there are insufficient officers at that level.[10] His statement is supported by the Annul Report of 2005-2006 of Ministry of Home Affairs.[11] Of the total posts sanctioned by the government under Indian Police Service (IPS) more than 15 percent of the posts are vacant. This basically means that there is one IPS officer for 77,000 SC/STs.33

[edit] Rehabilitation

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 India[12] 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[13] 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 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. Marginalisation 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.[14] 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.

[edit] Migration

Under constitutional provisions, a caste or tribe is notified with reference to a State or Union territory. Hence a person born in state/UT gets certificate of SC/ST if his/her father belongs to specified caste/tribe in that state as SC/ST. If he/she migrates to another state, he/she lose status for affirmative actions, i.e. benefit of admission in educational institutes, reservation in government employment etc. But he/she does not lose protection as guaranteed by constitution like PoA & other Acts in any other state. In brief once a person is notified as SC/ST in any one state/UT, he gets protection under SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 throughout the country, irrespective that caste or tribe is notified in the state/UT where offence is occurred.

[edit] Suggestions

The statement of object and reason of the SC/ST Act clearly reveals that the Act, in its letter and spirit, desires that dalits lead a dignified life. However, even after 16 years of its existence in the statute book, it has not shown its desired effect. The majority of the beneficiaries of this Act are unaware of the legitimate claims of leading a dignified way of life or are unwilling to enforce it intensively. Even the Police, prosecutors and judicial officers are unaware of this Act as was pointed out by Calcutta High Court in the case of M.C. Prasannan v. State of West Bengal.[15] What further aggravates the problem is the misapplication of the Act by police as well as by the courts which ultimately leads to acquittals.[16]

[edit] Rural atrocities which are not covered under this Act

Social and economic boycott and blackmail are widespread. In view of the fact that the main perpetrators of the crime sometimes co-opt a few SC/STs with them and take advantage of local differences among the SC/STs and sometimes they promote and engineer crimes but get them executed by some members of SC/STs, the Act should be suitably amended to bring such crimes and atrocities within the purview of the definition of atrocities under the Act.[13] Likewise, the Special Courts established under Section 14 of the Act are required to follow the committal procedure under Cr.P.C. Such an interpretation prevents the speedy trail envisaged under the Act. Further the absence of the adequate number of special courts has also resulted in slow disposal of atrocity cases and a huge back log.

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b (1992) 3 S.C.R. 284
  2. ^ Annual Report on The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for the Year 2002, at p.12.
  3. ^ http://www.censusindia.gov.in 2001 Census
  4. ^ "Human Rights Watch, “Broken People: Caste Violence Against India's Untouchables"". Hrw.org. http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/india. Retrieved 2008-12-29. 
  5. ^ K.I. Vibhute, “Right to Live with Human Dignity of Scheduled Castes and Tribes: Legislative Spirit and Social Response – Some Reflections”, 44 JILI (2002) 469 at 481.
  6. ^ 7(1).— An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government /Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time.
  7. ^ In 2002 the conviction rate was a mere 2 percent. Report by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
  8. ^ 1999 Cr LJ 2918
  9. ^ 1999 Cr LJ 3938
  10. ^ Lok Sabha Debates, see http://164.100.24.208/ls/lsdeb/ls13/ses13/210803.htm
  11. ^ Ministry of Home Affairs - Govt of India - India an Overview - India - History[dead link]
  12. ^ AIR 1994 MP 143
  13. ^ a b 11
  14. ^ 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
  15. ^ 1999 Cr LJ 998 (Cal)
  16. ^ Karansingh v. State of MP, 1992 Cr LJ 3054 (MP)

[edit] External links

[hide]v · d · eReservation in India

Misuse Although these reservations for SC/STs were brought about to uplift the underprivileged sections of the society, there have been reports that certificates have been issued to people not belonging to these castes by using unfair means.

via en.wikipedia.org

Posted by at

Flickr - projectbrainsaver

www.flickr.com
projectbrainsaver's A Point of View photoset projectbrainsaver's A Point of View photoset