Special Courts Under Sc/St Act
π· I. Introduction: SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
The SC/ST Act, 1989 was enacted to prevent atrocities and provide protection and justice to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who are historically marginalized and subjected to social discrimination and violence.
To ensure speedy and effective trial of offences under the Act, Special Courts are mandated under Section 14 of the Act.
π· II. Section 14 β Special Courts
β Section 14(1) of the SC/ST Act:
"For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, establish a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act."
β Section 14A (Amendment in 2015):
Provides right to appeal to victims or the state against bail, acquittal, or conviction in cases under this Act.
π· III. Purpose of Special Courts
Speedy trial of atrocities committed against SC/ST persons.
Ensure sensitivity and judicial awareness while dealing with caste-based crimes.
Provide special procedures and victim-centric safeguards, including the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors (Section 15).
Protect dignity and security of marginalized communities.
π· IV. Nature of Special Courts
They are Sessions Courts designated to act as Special Courts.
Their jurisdiction is limited to offences under the SC/ST Act and connected IPC offences.
Proceedings must be prioritized and concluded swiftly.
Special Courts have powers equivalent to that of a Court of Session.
π· V. Important Case Laws on Special Courts Under SC/ST Act
Letβs now examine six detailed landmark cases that clarified the scope, powers, and function of Special Courts under the SC/ST Act:
1. State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna Balothia & Another
(1995) 3 SCC 221
Issue:
Whether anticipatory bail is available for offences under the SC/ST Act?
Held:
Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail is barred under the Act (as per Section 18).
Emphasized that special provisions and courts are justified given the history of oppression faced by SC/ST communities.
Special Courts under Section 14 are created for speedy trial, not for regular bail jurisdiction.
Significance:
Reinforced the purpose of Special Courts to protect the vulnerable and expedite justice.
2. Swaran Singh v. State through Standing Counsel
(2008) 8 SCC 435
Facts:
Offence alleged under the SC/ST Act. Accused filed for quashing FIR, claiming caste remark was not made "in public view".
Held:
The Court emphasized literal and purposive interpretation of the Act.
Recognized the Special Court's duty to examine whether the charge is made out prima facie, not to quash FIR at the threshold.
Directed proper trial before the Special Court.
Significance:
Affirmed that Special Courts must examine facts sensitively and within the social context of caste-based violence.
3. Vilash v. State of Maharashtra
(2009) 11 SCC 242
Facts:
Delay in filing the charge sheet and trial under the SC/ST Act.
Held:
The Court observed that delay defeats the very purpose of establishing Special Courts.
Directed the State to take steps to ensure expeditious trial, including setting up exclusive courts where necessary.
Significance:
Highlighted how delay defeats legislative intent.
Reinforced the need for effective functioning of Special Courts.
4. Ashrafi v. State of U.P.
(2017) 3 SCC 617
Facts:
Accused contended that he should not be tried under the SC/ST Act as the caste-related insult was not made in public.
Held:
The Court clarified that Special Courts must conduct full trial to examine the context and impact of the offence.
Observed that Special Court has exclusive jurisdiction once offence under SC/ST Act is made out in FIR or charge sheet.
Significance:
Confirmed that Special Court is the proper forum for determination, not subordinate courts.
Strengthened the role of Special Courts in interpreting offences under the Act.
5. Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand
(2020) 10 SCC 710
Facts:
Allegations of insult based on caste in a private dispute over land. Accused challenged application of SC/ST Act.
Held:
The Court clarified that mere reference to caste in a private dispute does not automatically attract the SC/ST Act.
However, Special Courts have authority to test this after trial or charge framing.
Significance:
Provided guidance to Special Courts on filtering misuse while not ignoring genuine cases.
6. Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India
(2020) 4 SCC 727
Issue:
Challenge to the 2018 amendment which restored bar on anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act.
Held:
Upheld the constitutional validity of Section 18A, barring anticipatory bail.
However, clarified that Special Courts can quash false cases at the preliminary stage if prima facie no offence is made out.
Significance:
Balanced victim protection and misuse concerns.
Recognized the gatekeeping role of Special Courts in determining the genuineness of allegations.
π· VI. Challenges in Functioning of Special Courts
Despite clear legal mandates, Special Courts under the SC/ST Act face several practical issues:
Issue | Explanation |
---|---|
Lack of dedicated judges | Often, Sessions Judges have dual charge, affecting focus. |
Delays in trial | Defeats the purpose of "speedy trial" under Section 14. |
Poor victim support | Lack of Special Public Prosecutors or protection officers. |
Weak investigation | Police delay or bias affects charge framing under SC/ST Act. |
Misuse concerns | Allegations of false cases, especially in private disputes. |
π· VII. Conclusion
Special Courts under the SC/ST Act are a judicial tool to address the structural violence and discrimination faced by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. These courts play a crucial role in:
Ensuring expeditious trials
Applying strict liability where appropriate
Upholding constitutional protections under Article 15 and Article 17 (abolition of untouchability)
The judiciary has reinforced the power and duty of these Special Courts to handle such cases sensitively, swiftly, and effectively, while also putting in checks to prevent misuse.
0 comments