oppn parties Supreme Court on SC/ST Act: Law Must Be Equitable

News Snippets

  • Government to introduce PF for self-emplyed and gig workers
  • Crush at Puri Rathyatra leaves 2 dead and 78 injured
  • NEET-UG, marred in controversy due to pape4r leak, saw a huge increase in top scores as two scored 715/720 and 11.2 lkah candidates cleared the exam
  • India's first hydrogen-powered train will be flagged off by PM Modi from Jind in Haryana
  • Delhi HC asks the government to monitor Sona Wnagchuk's health regularly
  • TMC Rajya Sabha MP Koel Mallick resigns from her seat, leaves TMC. Mamata asks all those wishing to leave the party to do so before July 21
  • Calcutta HC says land deed is not a proof of citizenship. Refuses to provide protection to a man facing deportation on basis of land deed
  • Supreme Court tells the government to teach the third language in the 3-language formula in Class 6 and not Class 9
  • Government to take steps to boost liquidity for small businesses
  • RBI says that banks cannot sell seized assets back to the defaulters
  • Centre decides to take equity stakes in semiconductor startups
  • Markets remain flat on Thursday: Sensex closes just 1 point ahead and Nifty ended 5 point lower
  • BCCI:Selectors have possibly decided that Rohit Sharma will not be selected for ODIs after the Lord's game on Sunday
  • Japan Open badminton: P V Sindhu stuns world no. 5 Han Yue of China 21-16, 21-14 to enter the quarterfinals
  • 2nd ODI versus England: Indian batting fails miserably except Gill, Kohli and Iyer to score just 233 all out. England win by 4 wickets
Supreme Court clarifies that it has not issued a blanket ban on use of bulldozers, and they can be used after compliance with procedure laid down in civil laws
oppn parties
Supreme Court on SC/ST Act: Law Must Be Equitable

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2018-03-24 16:14:55

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
The Supreme Court has delivered a judgment that strikes a blow for individual rights over collective rights and tries to do away with draconian provisions of a law that have been proven to be unjust over the years. Yet, the political class has not taken kindly to this and has demanded that the court recall its judgment as it “waters” down the provisions of law and hence makes it meaningless. The Congress and several SC/ST leaders from BJP allies have voiced their opposition to the order.

The law in question is the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The recent ruling by the apex court has allowed the provision of anticipatory bail and a direction that arrests be made only after proper police inquiry and not automatically upon registration of a complaint. This is a sane order that restores equity and does away with draconian provisions in the law. There is no point in committing atrocities on citizens in order to prevent alleged atrocities on the SC/ST community.

Denial of anticipatory bail and immediate arrest upon lodging of complaint meant that this law was being misused, often to settle petty rivalries. This is borne out by statistics. The National Crime Reports Bureau data shows that nearly 15% of the cases filed under the act were found to be false and 75% of the cases that came up in the courts resulted in acquittals or were subsequently withdrawn.

In any case, it is a basic principle of law that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But the SC/ST Act presumes the accused to be guilty at the stage of complaint. It is no one’s case that atrocities against SC/ST go unpunished. But to presume that the one who lodges the complaint is right and a fairy and the one against whom the complaint is lodged is wrong and a villain is illegal. It is the court’s prerogative to pronounce judgments and even under the SC/ST Act the right of redress available to an accused person should not be curtailed by draconian provisions of law. Punish him or her as per the provisions, but only after being found guilty.