Misuse of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can perpetuate caste discrimination, remarks SC

In what could very well turn out to be another debatable move, the Supreme Court is considering introducing safeguards to prevent misuse of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989..The matter is being considered by a Bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit in an appeal against a judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had refused to quash prosecution under the Act, of one Subhash Kashinath Mahajan who is the Director of Technical Education..Facts.Certain adverse remarks were recorded against respondent, Bhaskar Karbhari Gaidwad by the Principal and Head of the Department of the College of Pharmacy where the respondent was employed. Respondent sought sanction for prosecution of the Principal under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and for certain other connected offences..The said matter was dealt with by the appellant, who was then the Director of Technical Education. The appellant declined to sanction the same whereupon another complaint was filed by the respondent against the appellant under the Act. The quashing of the said complaint was declined by the High Court leading to appeal in Supreme Court..When the matter was taken up for hearing on November 20 last year, the Supreme Court, after noting the facts, framed the following question:.“The question which has arisen in the course of consideration of this matter is whether any unilateral allegation of mala fide can be ground to prosecute officers who dealt with the matter in official capacity and if such allegation is falsely made what is protection available against such abuse.”.The court observed that if the allegation is acted upon, the proceedings can result in arrest or prosecution of the person and have serious consequences on his right to liberty even on a false complaint..It, therefore, proceeded to consider whether,.“there can be procedural safeguards so that provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 are not abused for extraneous considerations.”.The Bench appointed Senior Advocate Amrendra Sharan as Amicus Curiae to assist the court along with advocate Amit Anand Tiwari..It also issued notice to the Attorney General for India..Hearing today.When the matter was taken up today, Amicus Amrendra Sharan made his submissions. Sharan was of the opinion that the statute could be misused and suggested safeguards for prevention of abuse of the Act..Importantly, Sharan also suggested that Section 18 of the Act is violative of Part III of the Constitution..Section 18 of the Act excludes the applicability of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under the Act..Sharan argued that the same is violative of Articles 14 and 21 and does not have any rational basis to the object sought to be achieved..Further, Sharan submitted that various presumptions against the accused under the Act is against the basic tenets of law..The Bench also reacted positively to Sharan’s suggestions..“Presumption of innocence is a basic human right. Can we have presumptions against the accused”, asked Justice Goel..Justice Goel also remarked that false complaints under the Act will have results contrary to what the statute intends as it might perpetuate caste discrimination..“False complaints could perpetuate caste discrimination and fuel hatred. If somebody misuses it against a person, that person might develop hatred for that caste.” .Justice Lalit also weighed in asking how can a person, who refuses sanction for prosecution, be guilty of offence under the Act..“A man gives complaint under the Act against his superior. The complaint goes to the sanctioning authority. The sanctioning authority refuses sanction. How can we say that the sanctioning authority is guilty of offence under the Act?” .Sharan then made the following suggestions to the court:.Section 41 safeguards should be scrupulously followed.Instead of Deputy Superintendent of Police, it should be Superintendent of Police who should be responsible while arresting persons under the Act, particularly when the person to be arrested is a public servant.At the time of remand, the Magistrate should apply his mind on whether there are any reasons to believe the allegations or not.Section 18 of the Act violates Part III of the Constitution of India..Subsequently, the complainant’s lawyer made his submissions. He argued that the complaint was filed against the appellant because the appellant did not have the authority to grant or refuse sanction and he was aware of the same..“But that does not fall within the scope of the Act”, responded Lalit J..The Court then called for Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh and apprised him about the case..Singh referred to the judgment of the same Bench with regard to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and the use of ‘doctrine of possible abuse’ in the said decision..The Court asked him to submit his suggestions on the issue and adjourned the matter..Read the order of November 20 below.