An Analysis of the SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act

From ancient times to till now we found a particular group of community

is either been harassed or their reputation is being lowered in from them.
They are Scheduled Tribes, also known as the Dalit. For some instances,
the homicide of Dalits is being heard. Such types of incident baffled the
mindset of a common citizen of the nation because we are a progressive
country and if we heard such kind of news which will lower the reputation
of our country. Despite reservations provided to them constitutionally but
still, their representation at a private or in the government sector is very
less. So, keeping in mind that in 1989, the Government of India passed
the prevention of Atrocities Act (POA), And formally on 30th Jan 1990
after getting the nod from the President it gets implemented all over India
except in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. Underbill certain specific crimes
are delineated against Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribe as atrocities
and prescribed punishment and Fine for the atrocities under this act three
broad guidelines have been mentioned in it; The first one is to identify
what types of crimes will come under atrocities, secondly, all the states
and union territories are directed that they should appoint a special court
for SC/ST and dealt all the cases under Prevention of Atrocities Act (POA),
Thirdly all the atrocities prone or the areas which are under a high level of
caste-based violence the state government shall appoint a special officer
to monitor and maintain law and order.
Although the POA looks good on paper the reality it fails to get
implemented on the ground level.i
Offenders, Victim & Offence under this act
Any person who is not a member of an SC/ST and commits and offense
listed in the Act against the member of the scheduled caste/ tribe is an
offender.
Followings are the offends when committed by the non-SC/ST member
against the SC/ST community they are:ii
1. Forced to eat or drink an offensive or uneatable substance.
2. Caused annoyance, injury, or insult by throwing objectional materials
or excreta waste in front of his/her premise.
3. Paraded naked or with painted face with black colour on the body.
4. Wrongfully deprived of cultivation of his land.
5. Wrongfully deprived over his rights and enjoyment on land, water, etc.
6. Deliberately insulting in front of the public
7. Wrongful restraining from casting the vote and luring them to cast the
vote to a certain class of party.
8. Forced to leave his/her house from the village.
9. Falsely implicated in a criminal case where the sentence might be
imprisonment from the court.
10. Restraining from right to public passage.
11. Sexually assaulted a woman.
12. Destroying or tantalizing the place of worship.
13. Subjected to false legal proceedings.
14. Forced to do beggary or work as a bonded laborer.
15. Restraining from the drinking clean portable water.
16. Wrongfully caused injury or deaths to such communities.

Nature and Punishment for the offense under this

Under this act all the offenses which are mentioned above are
cognizable i.e. Police can arrest without warrant and can initiate its
inquiry. Also, the offender who has committed the offense will have to
face both IPC and POA sections and punishment in this may vary from
minimum to maximum. i.e. the minimum offense may include fine or
6-month imprisonment or both or death sentence can be rewarded in
some instances. And if a public servant commits an offense, he/she
shall be liable for 6-month jail or a fine or both. But if a government
officer commits the atrocities, he/she will be jailed after the due course
inquiry so this is the major drawback of this act iii. Because as soon as
the SC/ST communities file a case against the offender he is been
arrested and within 60 days he has to be presented in front of the
 magistrate. And for granting bail he has to apply in High courts of that
respective state.
So, keeping such thing in mind that a person won’t get bails directly
form the magistrate and reluctantly he has to go at the high court and
it's up to the discretionary power of the judges whether to give him
bail or not so it's a challenging issue for the accused. One more
important aspect is the instant arrest of the accused without giving
prior notice to the accused. So, in the year 2018 Supreme court of
India suggested following changes in this act and then gave their final
ascentiv.And said that "working of the SC/ST Act Should not result in
perpetuating casteism which can harm the integration of the society &
constitutional value".
1. All the investigations related to SC/ST Atrocities must be dealt with by
the officer, not below the rank of DSP. Earlier it was the inspector who
was responsible for this but now it has been quashed. v
2. The bail granted authority has been vested only to the high court of
the respective state but now the power has been imparted to judicial
Magistrate and now they can grant bail to the accused after proper
examination of the fact and evidence.
3. Under this act, there was no anticipatory bail provision in this but now
Magistrate has empowered to grant anticipatory bail.
Conclusion
Besides, these recommendations suggested by the SC of India but there
is the famous proverb which perfectly suited for this act and that proverb
is "Act with many teeth but which seldom bites” because these will most
likely that the real culprit will be spared as they will get anticipatory bail
before their arrest. According to NCRB (National Crime Record
Bureau)2017 there are 43,203 cases registered against SC/ST, about 6%
more than in the previous year. vi And the government also faced criticism
for that because they did not take any serious account of this.
i
SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities )Act, India, available at http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l440-Scheduled-
Castes-and-Tribes-Act-.html (Visited on July 6, 2020)
ii
Government of India, Act: SC/ST Atrocities Act 1989 (Ministry of Law & Justice,1989)
iii
Editorial, “A Hostile Environment and an Atrocious" The Wire, 26 March 2018
iv
SC Upholds constitutional validity of SC/ST Amendment Act, 2018, India, available at
http://ddnews.gov.in/national/sc-upholds-constitutional-validity-scst-amendment-act-2018 (Last Modified 2 Feb
2020)
v
D.Ramlinga Reddy vs State of AP (HC of AP 755,1996)
vi
NCRB, Report: Crime against persons belonging to SC/ST (Ministry of home affairs,2017)