In an election year, the Centre has backed the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community in a big way by acknowledging that specific instances of misuse of the law relating to atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot become the basis to conclude that the Act itself is bad.
The statement has come as part of an affidavit, filed by the Centre defending the amendments carried out to the 1989 SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act on August 17, 2018, which are under challenge in a PIL in the Supreme Court.
The amendments came about after a damning March 20, 2018 apex court ruling.
The ruling ordered a two-stage preliminary enquiry before registration of a case and before arrest of an accused.
Speaking in defence of the amended provision of Section 18A in the Act introduced on August 17 this year, the affidavit by Joint Secretary Rashmi Chowdhary in the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment said, "Certain specific incidents of misuse should not lead to an inference that the statute has become an instrument of caste hatred either as alleged or otherwise."
The Centre relied on statistics to show that the number of cases registered under this Act is on the increase and this is indicative of the fact that atrocities have not ceased against SCs/STs.
The figures showed that in 2016, 1,67,660 cases were pending in various courts, of which, 17,449 cases were disposed. Of these, 13,095 cases ended in acquittal, 4,354 resulted in conviction while 550 cases were withdrawn at the instance of the complainant. Similarly, in 2015 out of the 18,586 cases decided, 13,784 ended in acquittal and 4,802 in conviction while 584 cases stood withdrawn.
On an overall analysis of cases across the country, the rate of acquittal was 75 per cent in 2016, 74 per cent in 2015 and 71 per cent in 2014.
The Supreme Court's March 20 judgment quoted data from the Social Justice and Empowerment Ministry's Annual Report of 2016-17 to show that in 2015, out of 15,638 cases decided by courts, 11,024 resulted in acquittal. This rate of acquittal was higher compared to figures in the Centre's present affidavit.
The Centre agreed that the acquittal rate was high but did not accept it to be a result of false cases being lodged. Instead, it attributed it to a host of other issues. One of the grounds shown for higher acquittal is "prosecution unable to prove the charges or lack of corroborative evidence". This itself lends credence that the case could be false.
Further, the Centre argued that the additions made by court's order were impractical and impeded the purpose of Act. The court directed DSP-level police officer to scrutinise each complaint before registering FIR and mandated permission from the appointing authority for arresting a public servant or a SSP-ranking officer to arrest a common citizen.
