INTRODUCTION
Discrimination in Indian society has existed since ancient times, The Rig Vedic period, the Later Vedic period, the Mughal era, the colonial era, and finally the modern era. The atrocities suffered by the marginalised communities being socially and morally wrong were obliterated one by one. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1969,[1] Enacted to prevent atrocities and provide justice to the historically marginalised communities was one of the major and initial steps taken by the government of Free India to remove the evil of untouchability. These marginalized communities were economically and socially backward groups who had been tortured by the social evils of society, both socially and economically. The trends in crimes of oppression, discrimination, and violence, and the failure of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955[2] and the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, 1976,[3] Preventing atrocities and providing justice to victims, prompted the government to create stronger legal safeguards to protect such people from structural violence, including economic, social, physical, verbal, religious, and other forms of discrimination. These laws have been in effect ever since, without significant amendments, except one — which prevents anticipatory bail for atrocities against members of the SC/ST community. This makes the law more than half a century old, and recent developments necessitate its modification to reflect the economic, social, and political standing of SC/ST communities in today’s world. The misuse of this law, as highlighted in recent court rulings, has raised concerns about false complaints filed for personal or financial gain.
RECENT EXAMPLES OF DESECRATION-
A recent judgment was given by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, which emphasized the need for a thorough pre-registration verification process to check the credibility of a complaint before the filing of the FIR brought this issue into the limelight. It was the case of Vihari and 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another[4] where the case was filed by a member of the SC/ST community against the petitioner for financial gains and compensation (the alleged victim got a compensation of 75000/- from the state.) The court quashed the case against the petitioner and noted that many similar false FIRs have been registered in the state solely to obtain such compensation. The court accentuated the rigorous investigation process and trial by the police officers trained in this regard before arresting the accused and also suggested punishments for the people filing such false complaints for material benefit under Section 182 of the IPC. (Section 217 of the BNS, 2023)[5]
Another notable recent case is Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala.[6] The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing an FIR against a media person for making a derogatory remark against a member of the SC/ST community noted that there was no proper evidence that such remarks were made on the community or caste-based persona of the petitioner belonging to the SC/ST community. The judgment arises out of a complaint filed by CPI(M) MLA PV Sreenijan against Shajan Skaria, the editor of a Malayalam news portal and YouTube channel ‘Marunandan Malayalee,’ under section 3(1)(r)[7], for allegedly making derogatory remarks against him in a video published by the latter.[8] The transcript of the video in question, while alleging financial mismanagement, does not invoke Sreenijan’s caste identity or status in any form. So, the defendant cannot be held under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST ACT, 1989. The interesting interplay of ‘knowing’ and the ‘intention to humiliate’ in this judgment perfectly interprets that only an attack on the caste-based identity of people belonging to such a community invokes liability. [9]
THE CHALLENGES OF PROVING MISUSE-
While courts have acknowledged the problem of false cases, proving misuse is not straightforward. Moreover, the law is very strict in this case. The anticipatory bail being declined in this case under section 18 of the act also poses a greater challenge. The SC/ST Act, by design, offers strict protections to people who are victims of the act and that is also why it is hard to distinguish false claims from genuine ones. Thus, the court must swoop in to deliver justice to the people – whether it’s for the victim of the act or ironically enough, the victim created because of the act itself.
One of the biggest challenges lies in balancing the need for protection with the potential for abuse. The courts have many times mentioned that it is necessary to throw false claims but the original essence and the purpose of the act must not be affected because of this. Therefore, this issue dealing with major societal functions and marginalised communities requires the proper attention of the court so that injustice is done to no one.
LEGISLATIVE REFORMS AND JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT –
Evidence plays a very important role in any criminal proceeding, including those under the SC/ST Act, and as any such discriminatory action taken against the members of the SC/ST community is treated as a crime, FIR (First Information Report) must be filed based on credible information. However, the Apex Court of India, in the Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case,[10] Laid the guidelines for a proper preliminary inquiry before an FIR can be lodged under the SC/ST Act. This inquiry establishes a proper balance by ensuring that only genuine and deserving cases proceed to trial and that a person is not wrongfully accused and arrested in the absence of proper information or proof.
The court ruled in this regard that no automatic arrest should occur under the umbrella of the SC/ST act without evaluating the credibility of the complaint and conducting a proper and thorough investigation. This ruling balanced the need to protect the vulnerable without compromising the rights of the accused. Hereafter to address these challenges, legislative and judicial reforms have been suggested by various courts till now. Some of them are:
- Mandatory Pre-registration Inquiry: A proper step-by-step process for law enforcement offices to conduct a preliminary inquiry as suggested in the case of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan should be present in the act, before lodging an FIR under the SC/ST Act. This measure would help assess the quality of complaints and reduce the number of false cases. Also, the number of cases in the courts would decrease and proper attention would be given to relevant and deserving cases.[11]
- Mediation and Reconciliation: Before initiating legal proceedings and arrests, mandatory mediation or conciliation sessions should be held to resolve disputes amicably. This would not only save the court’s time but would also provide an alternative to litigation, particularly in cases where the central issue is not a caste-related offence but the desire for personal or financial benefit.
- Imposing Penalties for False Complaints: The alleged act should contain a specific and clear degree of punishments laid down for filing false complaints under this act for personal profit or gain, depending on the extent of damage to the other party.
CONCLUSION: THE BALANCE BETWEEN PROTECTION AND FAIRNESS-
Therefore, the SC/ST Act while being a vital piece of legislation for protecting depressed and marginalised communities can’t be revoked, but necessary amendments adhering to the orders and suggestions of the different courts. Safeguards should be introduced to ensure it is not used to wrongfully trouble individuals without evidence. Judicial scrutiny, preliminary inquiries, and the possibility of penalizing false claims are crucial needs to be taken towards maintaining this balance. Thus, a balance must be maintained while making sure that proper justice is served.
Author(s) Name: Ravi Shanker Bhatt (Assam University)
References:
[1] Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1969 OF The Constitution of India
[2] Untouchability Offences Act, 1951
[3] Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, 1976
[4] Vihari And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another Vihari And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another; 2024 : AHC : 153816
[5] Upadhyay, “SC/ST Act being misused for financial gains: Allahabad HC Bats for pre-fir assessment of the credibility of complaints.” (Live Law, 23 September 2024) < https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/sc-st-act-misuse-financial-gains-allahabad-high-court-pre-fir-assessment-credibility-complaints-270340 > assessed 11th January 2024
[6] 2024 INSC 625 – Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala
[7] Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1969
[8] Shivani Kapoor, “Shajan Skaria v the state of Kerala: A moment to rethink caste-based humiliation” (Hindustan Times, 3 Sep 2024) < https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/shajan-skaria-v-the-state-of-kerala-a-moment-to-rethink-caste-based-humiliation-101725290899003.html > assessed 11th January 2025
[9] Dhananjay.Mahapatra, “No SC/ST act offence if individual Dalit insulted: SC: India News – Times of India.” (The Times of India, 23rd August, 2024) < https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/no-sc/st-act-offence-if-individual-dalit-insulted-sc/articleshow/112747819.cms > assessed 11th Jan
[10] (2018) 6 SCC 454 – Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs The State of Maharashtra
[11] ibid
