Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act
📘 1. Introduction to the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
✅ Objective of the Act:
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to:
Prevent atrocities and discrimination against SC/ST individuals.
Provide special courts for speedy trial.
Ensure protection and rehabilitation of victims.
This legislation recognizes that caste-based discrimination and violence against SC/ST persons is not just personal but institutional and systemic.
⚖️ 2. Key Provisions of the Act
| Section | Provision |
|---|---|
| Section 2(1)(a) | Defines "atrocity" as specific acts of violence/discrimination committed against SC/ST members. |
| Section 3 | Lists specific offences like social boycotts, assault, humiliation, sexual violence, land grabbing, etc. |
| Section 14 | Establishes Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts for speedy trials. |
| Section 15A | Grants rights to victims and witnesses, including protection, fair trial, and dignity. |
| Section 18 | Bars anticipatory bail for the accused in offences under this Act. |
| SC/ST Amendment Act, 2015 & 2018 | Strengthened protections, made provisions stricter, and reversed certain court decisions. |
🚨 3. Common Atrocities Under the Act
Denial of access to public places.
Physical assault, murder, or sexual violence.
Verbal abuse using casteist slurs.
Forcing someone to eat inedible substances or perform degrading acts.
Social boycott or economic exclusion.
Land grabbing of SC/ST-owned property.
Filing false cases to harass SC/ST individuals.
📚 4. Important Case Laws (Detailed)
🔹 1. State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale (1993) SC
Facts: Dalits in Karnataka were denied access to a community water tank and harassed by upper castes.
Held:
The Supreme Court condemned caste-based discrimination as a clear violation of Article 17 (abolition of untouchability) and Article 21 (right to life).
The Prevention of Atrocities Act was invoked to punish those denying access to Dalits.
Significance:
Early recognition of institutional discrimination.
Strong affirmation that custom or tradition cannot override constitutional rights.
🔹 2. Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2012) SC
Facts: The accused used caste-based slurs and threatened a Dalit complainant. He applied for anticipatory bail.
Held:
The Court rejected anticipatory bail under Section 18, citing the seriousness of the offence under the PoA Act.
Emphasized that caste-based verbal abuse in public view amounts to an atrocity.
Significance:
Reinforced strict interpretation of Section 18.
Highlighted verbal abuse as actionable under the Act.
🔹 3. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018) SC
Facts: A public servant was accused under the PoA Act without prior approval from authorities. He challenged the FIR.
Held:
The SC introduced safeguards:
Preliminary inquiry before arresting a public servant.
Approval of appointing authority for prosecution.
However, this dilution of the Act led to widespread protests.
Significance:
Sparked the 2018 Amendment to restore the original intent of the Act by removing these safeguards.
🔹 4. Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) SC
Facts: The validity of the 2018 Amendment (which nullified Subhash Mahajan judgment) was challenged.
Held:
The Court upheld the 2018 Amendment, stating that unjustified protection to public servants would defeat the purpose of the Act.
Preliminary inquiry not mandatory and no prior sanction needed for registering FIRs against public servants.
Significance:
A major victory for the Dalit rights movement.
Restored the original protective framework of the law.
🔹 5. Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra (2009) SC
Facts: A caste Hindu woman abused a Dalit woman in public using casteist slurs.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that intentional insult and humiliation using caste names in public view falls squarely under the PoA Act.
Significance:
Clarified that verbal abuse in public, especially using casteist language, constitutes an atrocity.
Highlighted that even women can be prosecuted under the Act.
🔹 6. Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) SC
Facts: Dispute arose over property. One party used caste-related abuse, and a case was filed under PoA Act.
Held:
The Court held that the abuse must be specifically intended to insult a person on the basis of caste, and must occur in public view.
A mere personal dispute without caste context may not attract the PoA Act.
Significance:
Introduced caution in applying the Act to avoid misuse.
Emphasized the need for caste-specific intention behind the abuse.
🔹 7. Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) SC
Facts: A scheduled caste woman was raped, and her husband murdered.
Held:
The Court upheld enhanced punishment under both IPC and PoA Act, recognizing the atrocity aspect.
Court observed that sexual violence and murder against SC/ST individuals must be viewed through the lens of systemic oppression.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that sexual violence against Dalit women often has a caste-based dimension.
📊 5. Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case Name | Key Issue | Judgment Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Appa Balu Ingale (1993) | Denial of access to water | Affirmed Dalit rights under Art. 17; upheld PoA Act |
| Vilas Pawar (2012) | Verbal caste abuse | Rejected anticipatory bail; public abuse punishable |
| Subhash Mahajan (2018) | FIR against public servant | Introduced checks (later nullified by Amendment) |
| Prithvi Raj Chauhan (2020) | Validity of 2018 Amendment | Upheld amendment; restored original law |
| Ashabai Adhagale (2009) | Casteist slur by woman | Verbal insult in public is atrocity |
| Hitesh Verma (2020) | Personal dispute vs. caste abuse | Personal dispute not always an atrocity |
| Khuman Singh (2019) | Murder & rape of SC woman | Applied PoA Act with IPC for enhanced punishment |
🧠 6. Key Takeaways
The SC/ST (PoA) Act is a social justice tool, not just a penal statute.
Strict procedural provisions like no anticipatory bail and speedy trials are essential for justice.
Courts have tried to balance protection of victims with guarding against misuse.
Public humiliation, abuse, or violence due to caste identity is central to offences under the Act.
Amendments in 2015 and 2018 restored the protective spirit of the law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments