ForumIAS announcing GS Foundation Program for UPSC CSE 2025-26 from 27th May. Click Here for more information.
‘Court had no business to dilute Act’
What has happened?
In its review petition filed before the Supreme Court on Monday, the Centre said the court had no business to dilute the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and make it easier for accused persons to escape arrest.
SC’s view
The Act is weakly implemented instead of being misused as the conviction rate is low
Changes made by SC:
- Anticipatory bail: To allow accused persons under the Act to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Act
- Preliminary enquiry: An FIR should be registered only after a “preliminary inquiry” was held by a Deputy Superintendent of Police to check if the complaint was “frivolous”
Government’s view
The reason of low conviction rate
Delay in lodging the FIR, hostile witnesses and complainants, absence of proper scrutiny of cases by the prosecution before filing charge sheet and lack of proper presentation and appreciation of evidence by the court
Effect of introducing preliminary enquiry
Only reduce the rate of registration of cases, conviction, increase pendency and per se serve as a deterrent in filing FIR
Heinous crimes are committed against SC/STs: So no violation of Article 21
Objecting to the court’s reasoning that non-availability of anticipatory bail was violative of Article 21 (fundamental right to personal liberty), the government reminded that offences under the Act are “heinous crimes committed to humiliate and subjugate members of the SCs/STs with a view to keep them in a state of servitude.”
Section 18 is a deterrent
Section 18 of the Act is its “backbone” as it enforces an inherent deterrence and instils a sense of protection among members of the SCs/STs
