The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment in a batch of petitions challenging the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act of 2018, which nullified a controversial March 20, 2018 apex court judgment diluting the stringent provisions of the Dalit protection law.
The Supreme Court has itself recalled its March 20 judgment on October 1, 2019 in a review petition filed by the government. It said it was wrong on the part of the March 20 judgment to treat all SC/ST community members as “a liar or crook”. It was against “basic human dignity”. The March 20 judgment had diluted the original 1989 legislation, saying they were using its provisions to file false criminal complaints against innocent persons.
‘Human failing’
On October 1, the Supreme Court cast aside the reasoning as faulty, saying human failing and not caste is behind false complaints.
On Thursday, before reserving the case for judgment, a Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and S. Ravindra Bhat made it clear that it would neither upset the October 1 judgment nor dilute the provisions of the statute.
“We will not be touching anything,” Justice Mishra clarified.
The government had brought in the amendments, saying the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes continue to face the same social stigma, poverty and humiliation to which they have been subjected for centuries.
Huge backlash
The 2018 Act nullified a March 20 judgment of the Supreme Court, which allowed anticipatory bail to those booked for committing atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes members. The original 1989 Act bars anticipatory bail. The apex court verdict saw a huge backlash across the country. Several died in ensuing protests and crores worth of property was destroyed. The government reacted by filing a review petition in the Supreme Court and subsequently amended the 1989 Act back into its original form.
Several petitions were filed challenging the 2018 Amendment Act. The lead petitioner, advocate Prithvi Raj Chauhan, even called the amendments a “blunder” and a violation of the fundamental right to equality and personal liberty. The Supreme Court however had refused to stay the implementation of the amendments.
‘No decrease’
The government had responded that there was no decrease in the atrocities committed on members of SC/ST communities, despite the laws meant to protect their civil rights.
“The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 is the least which the country owes to this section of the society, who have been denied several civil rights since generations and have been subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment,” the government has argued.
