Scope of SC/ST Act extends across country, not just in state where person is recognized as SC/ST: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the protection granted to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act), as notified in a particular state or union territory, will extend to the whole country. [Sanjay Katkar v. State of Maharashtra].A Full Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere, Bharati Dangre and NJ Jamadar also held that irrespective of the punishment prescribed for various offences under the SC/ST Act, all appeals in Maharashtra challenging trial court orders under the said Act shall lie before a single-judge of the High Court. The Court pronounced the verdict today after a Justice SV Kotwal had referred these two issues for consideration by a Full Bench. Answering the first issue, the Court held,"The scope of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 cannot be restricted to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to the State or Union Territory in which he is declared as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe only, but he is also entitled to the protection under the Act, in any other part of the country, where the offence is committed, though he is not recognized as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in that part.".Difficult to shake off caste identity even if a persons changes cities, professions: Court.The Court declined to accept submissions by Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, who argued that the benefits of the SC/ST Act to a person whose caste has been notified by a state will be limited to that state only.In doing so, the Court noted that a person's caste-identity is difficult to shake off, regardless of whether he changes cities or professions. “A person has no choice of his own, but since he is born out of a relationship between two persons, belonging to that group, the caste of that group automatically sticks to him, as he gained it as a hereditary trait. It is not possible for him to get rid of the baggage of his caste though he may come out of the occupational grouping or from the social status of that particular caste. He may travel to different cities and undertake different occupations, at times dignified one, but would find it difficult to shed off his caste based identity, as it is nearly impossible to break the rigours of the inflexible and exclusive character of the caste system”, the Court said. .The Court added that a person would not be in a position to free himself of his caste barriers either by marriage or by conversion."His economic status, his social status may undergo a change superficially, but he is unable to attain the status of higher caste, on the parameters of education, progress and his potential to overcome the distress suffered by him once upon a time."It added that a person born as a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe may have to suffer disadvantages, disabilities and indignities, on account of being born into a particular caste/tribe. .From this view point, the Court held that it would be a myth to hold that the Act is limited in its protection to the boundaries of a State.The Court also reasoned that restricting the protection extended to a member of a scheduled caste or tribe to a particular State would defeat their fundamental right to travel across the country under Article 19 of the Constitution. .All appeals against convictions for SC/ST Act offences will lie before single judge of High Court.The Court opined that in order to avoid any dichotomy, it is preferable that irrespective of the term of punishment specified under an SC/ST Act offence, appeals against trial court orders must lie before a single-judge of the High Court. .The Full Bench noted that Section 14A of the SC/ST Act did not specify whether an appeal challenging a conviction under the Act would lie before a single-judge bench or a division bench of the High Court. The answer, therefore, lay in the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules.These Rules clearly granted powers to the High Court to conclusively decide whether a matter should be heard by a single-judge or a division bench for the easier administration of justice, the Bench opined..The Court also concluded that appeals against bail orders (covered by Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act) should also to be heard by a single-judge of the High Court..Advocates Dr Abhinav Chandrachud, Swati Bhushan Sharma, Prakash Ambedkar, Kishore Walanju, Sanjeev Kadam and PP Raul appeared for appellants.Advocate General Dr Birendra Saraf with public prosecutor AS Pai appeared for State.Former Additional Solicitor General Anil V Singh with Advocate Aditya Thakkar, appeared for the Union of India.. [Read Judgment]