March 20 Judgment Is A Judicial Amendment To SC/ST Act, It Affected The Morale And Confidence Of SC/ST Community : AG KK Venugopal

“These people (the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) have been suppressed for years...this judgment has affected their morale and confidence...this matter needs to settled finally by a larger bench...”, Submitted AGThe Supreme Court Bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit on Thursday rejected Centre's plea to stay the March 20 Judgment by which the bench issued many directions to prevent the misuse of provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (SC/ST Act).Today, Attorney General K. K. Venugopal submitted that the Judgment in Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra is a clear case of judicial amendment to Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (SC/ST Act) and the judgment needs to be referred to larger bench.“In so far as the judgement makes any violation of the directions issued therein punishable by disciplinary action as well as contempt, the DSP has no option but to conduct the preliminary inquiry...substituting preliminary enquiry for FIRs amounts to legislation, and consequently, the 1989 Act stands amended...it clashes with section 4 of the Act which directs a public servant to register a complaint or a First Information Report under the Act as well as other relevant provisions and imposes punishment for any neglect of duties...in as much as the judgment mandates the sanction of the Appointing Authority prior to the arrest of a public servant under the 1989 Act, it may be noted that these Authorities generally have no knowledge of the criminal law...further, the need for sanction is for the legislature to determine and in this behalf, section 197, Cr. P. C. exists...there is a concept of separation of powers ...in so far as the judgment does away with the bar on the grant of anticipatory bail in an offence under the 1989 Act, it may be seen that section 18 of the Act has been held as constitutionally valid by this court...”“It is not a direction that the DSP must carry out the preliminary enquiry...under the 1989 Act, the DSP is the Investigating Officer...he could state that he is satisfied there is no false implication and proceed to register the FIR...”, remarked the bench.“All that the judgment says is that arrest may not be readily resorted to...in such legislations as TADA and POTA where the crime in question is of a graver magnitude, the Legislature has put embargo on regular as well as anticipatory bail...the idea is that the perpetrator may not be released easily...but the Act of 1989 places no restraint on regular bail...under its section 3, the punishment may even be imprisonment for 6 months... the accused may be released even on the first day...what objective is the Legislature trying to achieve? the fear of arrest?”, the bench observed.Referring to the data compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau on the number of cases decided under the 1989 Act resulting in acquittal or discharge, which were relied upon in the March 20 judgment, the AG advanced, “how can the court proceed on the assumption that these cases were false?”In response to a submission by the AG in the same behalf, the bench observed, “it is not that 85% of the cases filed are correct and only 15% are false...please verify the statistics”“The allegations in the cases are such which make us shudder”, continued the AG, citing unfortunate instances of the rape of a physically challenged Dalit woman and a Dalit couple being beaten to death in Bihar. “We have clarified the last time that in cases of offences under the IPC or other substantive criminal laws, the FIR may be registered right away...we have not said that the directions have to be followed no matter how serious the crime...”, stated the bench.Advancing that courts may only stipulate guidelines in the context of a particular case and not general guidelines as a matter of law for the whole country, the AG relied on the seven judge. Bench decision of the Supreme Court in P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, wherein it was observed, “...Legislators can lay down rules purely for the future and without reference to any actual dispute; the courts, insofar as they create law, can do so only in application to the cases before them and only insofar as is necessary for their solution...Courts can declare the law, they can interpret the law, they can remove obvious lacunae and fill the gaps but they cannot entrench upon in the field of legislation properly meant for the legislature...”“In that case, it was held that courts may not substitute the law in the light of periods of limitation beyond which a trial or criminal proceeding shall not proceed having been stipulated...that would have amounted to acquittal in all cases...”, countered the bench.“These people (the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) have been suppressed for years...this judgment has affected their morale and confidence...considering the the judgment of the 7 judge bench, this matter needs to...

March 20 Judgment Is A Judicial Amendment To SC/ST Act, It Affected The Morale And Confidence Of SC/ST Community : AG KK Venugopal

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

March 20 Judgment Is A Judicial Amendment To SC/ST Act, It Affected The Morale And Confidence Of SC/ST Community : AG KK Venugopal

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers