INTRODUCTION:

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (commonly referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’ or ‘Prevention of Atrocities Act’) was enacted to prevent crimes and atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in India. The Act was designed to address the systemic discrimination, social exclusion, and violence faced by these marginalized communities. This Act was enacted to overcome the loophole of the existing law i.e. Protection of Civil Right Act, 1955, Indian Penal code, 1860 and Untouchability (Offences) Act,1955 also revised  Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1976 to protect the discrimination against this particular community. Further Act subsequently amended in 2015 and 2018. 

OBJECTIVES OF ACT:

1. Prevention of Atrocities: The legislation seeks to combat offenses including coerced labour, sexual abuse, hate speech, social ostracism, exclusion from public areas, and various types of violence rooted in the caste system.

2. Special Provisions: It creates designated courts for expedited trials and enforces strict punishments for crimes committed against Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).

3. Relief and Rehabilitation: The legislation includes provisions for the support and recovery of individuals affected by caste-related crimes.

4. Deterrence: By enforcing severe penalties, the legislation aims to discourage individuals and organizations from engaging in caste-related offenses.

5. Investigation: Violations of the Act are required to be examined by an officer holding the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) or higher.

6. Anticipatory Bail: Generally Accused   persons   are   not eligible for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 482 of BNSS. But a person's right to seek anticipatory bail cannot be denied under Section 18 unless it   can   be   established that there   is   a   prima   facie   case. (Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala  2024 LiveLaw (SC) 601)

WHY THE ACT WAS NECESSARY: 

Historical Discrimination: 

Since ancient period Verna is classified into four group. In this schedule caste are outside of these classes. Even Britishers have also criminalised them. Therefore they are called as marginalised, Dalit or untouchable. However, STs are not untouchable but they were faced challenges and serious exploitation in daily life. Zamidari system is important cause of such above societal caste based discrimination. 

SCs and STs have historically faced systemic discrimination and violence due to the caste system in India.

Inadequate Protection: 

Existing laws were insufficient to address the specific nature of caste-based atrocities. Since ancient vedic era till British era no law was enacted to give equal rights to sc/st members. Hence after independence new law emerge with purview of constitution of India. Still 2025 there are various amendment happen to safeguard sc/st members.  

Social Justice: 

The Act was enacted to ensure social equality and protect the dignity and rights of SCs and STs. It was enacted due to our Indian constitution and our beloved freedom fighter has think about our all people of India. 

As stated in the SC/ST Act, safeguards are established against social injustices such as being barred from entering specific locations and utilizing traditional routes, as well as personal abuses like being coerced into consuming harmful substances or food, sexual harassment, physical harm, and more. Additionally, it addresses property-related offenses, wrongful legal actions, political discrimination, and economic exploitation.

CONSTITUITIONAL PROVISIONS:

This acknowledgment grants specific protections to groups that have been historically marginalized and exploited. These protections encompass preferential access to educational institutions, employment opportunities, and various socio-economic advantages (Articles 15 and 16).

The Constitution of India ensures that all individuals are treated equally, regardless of their social class, skin colour, faith, gender, or religious beliefs.

Article 17 of the Constitution of India aims to eliminate the practice of untouchability. The term 'untouchability' encompasses not only the avoidance or restriction of physical interaction but also a wider array of social prohibitions.

Article 46 of the Constitution of India advocates for the educational and economic welfare of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and other marginalized groups within society, aiming to safeguard them against social injustice and exploitation.

Article 338 of the Constitution of India establishes the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. The responsibilities of this commission encompass the following:  

- To investigate and oversee all issues pertaining to the constitutional and other legal protections for Scheduled Castes, as well as to assess their effectiveness;  

- To address particular grievances regarding the infringement of rights and protections afforded to Scheduled Castes.

Article 338-A of the Constitution of India establishes the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, which operates in a manner akin to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes.

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT 

The Act has been interpreted and modified over the years, including through Supreme Court judgments like Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 6 SCC 454  in this case, the Supreme Court of India banned immediate arrest of a person accused of insulting or injuring a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe member to protect innocents from arbitrary arrest. However, this judgment was reviewed to nullify its earlier judgment and the same amendment of 2018 made by parliament due to widespread protest and outrage of people. 

In Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 727 Supreme Court held that 2018 amendment constitutionally valid. Section 18A is declared constitutionally valid. The Supreme Court noted that the provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code do not apply to cases under the Act. However, if the complaint fails to establish a prima facie case for the Act of 1989, the restrictions imposed by Sections 18 and 18A(i) will not be applicable. Additionally, the Court has overturned the earlier ruling in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2018).

2015 Amendment

New offenses related to atrocities have been introduced, which encompass the following actions: 

- Garland with footwear

- Denial of access to irrigation resources or forest rights

- Designating a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) woman as a devadasi

- Caste-based abuse

- Enforcing a social or economic boycott

Additionally, certain offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that carry a penalty of less than ten years of imprisonment have been classified as punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (PoA Act). 

A presumption has been established regarding these offenses: if the accused has prior knowledge of the victim or their family, the court will assume that the accused was aware of the victim's caste or tribal identity unless proven otherwise. 

Regarding the judicial process, it is mandated that a dedicated special court be set up at the district level. In districts with a lower incidence of such cases, a special court may still be constituted to adjudicate these offenses. All cases are required to be resolved within a two-month timeframe. Appeals from these courts will be directed to the High Court and must be addressed within three months.

In 2018, the Supreme Court mandated that:  

• Arrests under the Act are prohibited without prior authorization:  

• From the appointing authority in the case of public officials.  

• From the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) for all other individuals.  

• A preliminary inquiry must be carried out prior to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).

2018 Amendment

The legislation was revised to negate the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling from 2018. In the revised SC/ST Act, the following provisions apply for filing FIRs in instances of atrocities against Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). There is no need for prior approval from appointing authorities for senior police officials, and a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory.

Some of the important case laws

1. Asmathunnisa Vs. State of AP, AIR 2011 SC 1905 (para 10)

2. Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of AP, (2008) 12 SCC 531

3. Sudama Giri Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2009 CrLJ (NOC) 1250 (Jharkhand)

In above cited case it has held that-The phrase "in any place within public view" as stated in Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act indicates that the individual being insulted must be visible to the public; therefore, their presence is necessary for the offense to be applicable. If the individual is not present, the allegations under Section 3(1)(x) do not hold.

In Mata Sewak Vs. State of UP, 1995 AWC 2031 (Allahabad) (Full Bench) it has been held that Knowledge and not mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offences of Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 

In Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P. AIR 2011 SC 1905 it has been held in this case that the words used in sub section (x) of section 3 (prior to the amendment of 2016) are not in public place, but within public view which means the public must view the person being insulted for which he must be present and no offence on the allegations under the said section gets attracted.

In Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 1876 it has been held that In order for the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act to apply, it is essential that the victim is an individual who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. Furthermore, the offense under the Indian Penal Code must be perpetrated against this individual specifically due to their status as a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. Without the presence of these elements, an offense under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act cannot be established.

In Ashabai Ganeshrao Khote vs. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 5 Bom 113 in this case it has been held that prosecution must establish that the accused was not member of SC/ST and the aggrieved person was member of SC/ST.

In State of MP Vs. Ram Kishna Balothia, AIR 1995 SC 1198 Supreme Court held the offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 form a distinct class of offences by themselves and cannot be compared with other offences.

In Munna Pandey Vs. State of UP, 2008 (62) ACC 637 (All) it held that where the accused had allegedly committed offences u/s 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that since the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act is punishable with sentence up to five years and fine only, Magistrate has got jurisdiction to grant bail for the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the aforesaid Act irrespective of the fact that the offence is triable by the Court of Sessions.

In Pushpa Vijay Vonde Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 CrLJ 3204 (Bombay) it has been held that following the establishment of facts during the investigation, the Investigating Officer has the discretion to document whether the accused is affiliated with a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Once a final opinion is reached, the Court has the authority to either accept this opinion or take cognizance of the matter. Even if a charge sheet is submitted during the charge consideration phase, the accused may inform the Court that the evidence indicates they do not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Furthermore, even after charges are framed, evidence can still be presented during the trial to demonstrate the accused's affiliation or lack thereof with a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

In State of Maharashtra Vs. Vijay Chandradhan, 2010 CrLJ (NOC) 104 (Bombay) in this case court held  where FIR does not disclose caste of the accused as well as of the complainant, cognizance of the offence under the SC/ST Act could not be taken on the basis of such FIR.

ISSUES:

• Police officers have consistently shown a reluctance to register offences under the act.

• Even though law mandates that special court must be created for speedy trial of cases however only few states have special court.

• Sometimes judicial bias is found which is a travesty of justice.

• It does not cover the Dalit Christians who converted into Christianity.

• Low rate of conviction rate.

MISUSE AND CHALLENGES:

While the Act is crucial for protecting SCs and STs, there have been concerns about its misuse and challenge.

1. False Cases: It has been seen that various false cases are filed for property rights. Supreme Court in their judgment has noted down such kinds of false cases filed against innocent persons.

2. Acquittal Rates: Due to lack of evidence or improper investigation acquittal rates are high however in this acquittal some false cases are also included.

3. Preventing Misuse: Balancing the need for stringent provisions with safeguards to prevent misuse. For preventing law to be misused by false victims some punishment should be included in law.

4. Inadequate Justice Delivery: Non registration of FIR, delay in filing complaints, delay in charge sheet, investigation delay, etc are main reason where justice are not delivered to victim. 

5. Rise in Crimes: Despite having stricter provisions crime rate as per NCRB in going high. 

In Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Case (2018) on SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act: 

• Supreme Court opined that SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act {SC/ST (PoA Act)} is being misused and checks are needed to prevent such misuse. 

• The Act has become a tool to persecute innocents and public servants for political and personal gains. • Provided guidelines for preventing the misuse of the act. 

• Preliminary inquiry at the level of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) is required to verify the authenticity of the case before registering FIR. A person can be released on anticipatory bail unless a prima facie case of crimes or atrocities is made out. 

• No FIR should be registered against government servants without the approval of the appointing authority. 

• SC/ST (PoA) Act, had to be interpreted in a manner which will ensure that “casteism is not perpetuated” through the implementation of the law.

In the case of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, it was not brought to the notice of their Lordship the socio-cultural dynamics surrounding caste-related atrocities. The ruling was solely based on what happened in various High Court decisions. It correlated the high acquittal rates with a significant number of false allegations. However, an increase in acquittals should not be interpreted as indicative of the falsity of the cases. The weakening of the SC/ST (PoA) Act would severely undermine social justice. Given the inherent power imbalance within India's caste system, present in every village, ensuring thorough investigations and prompt, effective trials is exceedingly challenging. Such dilution would render the Act ineffective and reverse the progress made in social transformation.

CONCLUSION:

The Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 is a critical piece of legislation aimed at preventing crimes against SCs and STs and ensuring justice for victims. While it has been effective in addressing caste-based violence, challenges like misuse and delays in justice remain. Proper implementation, awareness, and safeguards are essential to achieve the Act's objectives while ensuring fairness. 

Act serves as a vital instrument for the marginalized and disadvantaged groups in society. The primary focus now should be on enhancing awareness within the SC/ST community about the Act. It is crucial to prioritize the reduction of case backlogs and ensure that offenders are held accountable, as this is essential for fostering a casteless society free from untouchability and hostility towards vulnerable populations. The Central Government periodically issues advisories to State Governments and Union Territory Administrations to ensure the effective implementation of the SC/ST Act and its associated rules, as 'Police' and 'Public Order' fall under State jurisdiction according to Schedule 7, List II of the Constitution of India. Additionally, the National Helpline against Atrocities (NHAA), a toll-free service at 14566, is provided by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to facilitate the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with the objective of their grievance redressal and to generate awareness about the provisions and processes under the Law.