A Supreme Court Bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit is scheduled to hear on Tuesday the government's plea to review their March 20 judgment that said the law to protect Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from caste atrocities was being misused as a means for “blackmail”.
As agitations against the judgment claimed several lives across the country, Attorney General K.K. Venugopal made an urgent mention first before a Bench led by Justice Goel to take up the government's review petition filed on Monday. The government referred to the violent Dalit protests on Monday and sought an urgent hearing of the review petition.
Justice Goel asked Mr. Venugopal to mention before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to constitute a Bench and fix a hearing.
The government's battery of lawyers, led by Mr. Venugopal, immediately went to the CJI's court to again mention the issue.
'Ruling should not be stalled merely because of agitations'
Senior advocate Amrendra Sharan, who was amicus curiae in the case, which led to the March 20 judgment, protested saying that an apex court judgment should not be stalled merely because of agitations and it was the government's duty to restore law and order.
The Chief Justice finally agreed to constitute a Bench of Justices Goel and Lalit and fixed the review petition to be heard before it in open court at 2 p.m. on Tuesday.
“The judgment affects a substantial portion of the population of India being members of the SC/ST and is contrary to the legislative policy of Parliament,” the government has said.
The 89-page verdict by a Bench of Justices Goel and Lalit read down Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 to allow accused persons under the Act to apply for anticipatory bail. Section 18 barred persons accused of causing casteist injury and insult to Dalits from seeking anticipatory bail.
Secondly, the judgment directed that an FIR should be registered only after a “preliminary enquiry” was held by a Deputy Superintendent of Police to check if a complaint is “frivolous”. Any deviation from the directions would automatically lead to the contempt of the Supreme Court, the Bench had warned.
'Easier for accused to get away'
In its review petition, the Centre said the court had no business to dilute the Act by laying down such guidelines and make it easier for accused persons to escape arrest.
“In the given situation of continuing offences of atrocities against members of SC/ST, it would be more significant and meaningful to affirm the reliance and trust of SC/ST on the statute and not make it easier for the accused to get away from arrest by imposing a preliminary enquiry,” the Centre said.
Instead of being misused, the Act is weakly implemented, the government argued.
Objecting to the court's reasoning that non-availability of anticipatory bail was violative of Article 21 (fundamental right to personal liberty), the government said "while it is important to protect the rights of the accused under Article 21, it would deserve to be considered that the protection of Article 21 as well as Article 17 [abolition of untouchability] is equally available to the members of the SC/ST. The immense pain and injury caused on the commission of offence against SC/ST is the worst form of violation of Article 21 requiring complete and strict implementation of the provisions of the Act".
An accused on anticipatory bail would use his liberty to terrorise his victims and prevent proper investigation. Section 18 of the Act is its “backbone” as it enforces an inherent deterrence and instills a sense of protection amongst members of the SC/STs. Potential of misuse of an Act cannot be a “valid, justifiable or permissible ground” for diluting its stringent provisions of the Act. If that's the case, the entire criminal law would be rendered toothless, the government argued.
The government reminded the court that the “constitutional goal of equality for all citizens of this country can be achieved only when the rights of the SC/STs are protected”.
