Apex Court issues directions to prevent SC/ST Act

Why in news?

Recently, the Supreme Court diluted the provision of SC/ST act on the pretext of its misuse.

About SC/ST Act, 1989:
Act was constituted to:

1-To prevent discrimination against SC and STs.
2-To prevent atrocities against SC and STs.
3-To provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims.

Changes made by SCs verdict
Provisions:

1-Act denies bail to the accused.
2-Under this act civil servants shall be punished with imprisonment for committing any offence.
3-Under this act people are not permitted to appeal to the court for bail.

Verdict:

1-SC has permitted anticipatory bail where there is no prima facia case.
2-Public servant can be arrested after approval of the appointing authority.
3-A preliminary enquiry should be conducted to rule out frivolous and motivated complaints.
4-Prior sanction of an appointing officer would be required before arresting a public servant or other citizens.

Arguments in favour of SC Judgment:

1-It will promote fraternity and integration of society.
2-To address social deficit.
3-For unified and casteless society
4-To achieve the “dignity of individual”
5-Article 17 abolished untouchability and made it “an offence punishable by law”.
6-It will prevent caste based discrimination.

Arguments against SC verdict:

1-It would lead to “great miscarriage of justice” as per dalit organizations.
2-Government offices and departments are sites of discrimination and justice to SC/STs.
3-SC unfortunately modified section 18 of the Act in name of “misuse”.
4-Delays in arrests of the accused force victims to withdraw cases.
5-If the fear of being arrest is removed, it will lead to increase in attacks and violence against SC/STs

Reasons for failure in implementation of SC/ST act :

1-The primary obstacles to implementation are intended to be the primary enforces of the act that is police and bureaucracy.
2-Nearly a quarter of these government officials charged with enforcing the act are unaware of its existence.
3-Judicial delay is another cause.
4-Non-availability of protection for the victims.
5-Delays in trail and low conviction rate.
6-Poor coordination between the enforcement authorities at state and district level.
7-Procedural delays in investigation, arrests, and filing of charge sheets.

Conclusion:

The decision of the SC emphasizes the intention of the government to deliver justice to these communities through proactive efforts to enable them to live in society with dignity and self-esteem. The harassment of an innocent citizen, irrespective of caste or religion, is against the guarantee of the Constitution. Thus, anti-atrocity acts should be kept under complete surveillance so that the ethos of such acts is not being challenged.