SC/ST Act Judgment Reviewed: Supreme Court Upholds Protection Against Atrocities

The Supreme Court of India recently reviewed its earlier judgment regarding the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in the case of Union of India v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. The Court overturned its previous directions that had placed conditions on arrest under the Act. The review petition was filed by the Union of India challenging the earlier ruling that required prior approval for arrests in cases under the SC/ST Act.

The judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah, and B.R. Gavai reaffirmed the need for stringent protection under the SC/ST Act to prevent caste-based atrocities and emphasized that any dilution of the Act would defeat its very purpose.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Union of India)

The Union of India argued that the earlier judgment, which mandated prior approval of the appointing authority for arresting public servants and the approval of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) for arresting non-public servants, was against the legislative intent of the Act. The government contended that the law was enacted to protect vulnerable communities and that procedural safeguards should not weaken its implementation.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents defended the original judgment, stating that misuse of the SC/ST Act had been reported, and procedural safeguards were necessary to prevent false implications. They pointed to statistical data suggesting a certain percentage of false cases and argued that preliminary inquiries should be mandated to verify complaints before arrests.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court, after reviewing extensive arguments, ruled in favor of the Union of India and struck down the previous guidelines requiring prior approval for arrests under the SC/ST Act. The Court made the following key observations:

• Upholding the Act’s intent: The SC/ST Act was enacted to address deep-seated discrimination and atrocities against Dalits and Tribals. The Court noted that placing procedural barriers on arrests would defeat the purpose of the legislation.
• Judicial restraint: The Court ruled that its earlier directions encroached upon legislative powers and that the judiciary should not interfere with policy matters.
• Discrimination in legal procedures: It was held that subjecting complaints by SC/ST individuals to a special verification process, while not applying similar rules to complaints by non-SC/ST individuals, was discriminatory.
• Abuse of law not a ground for dilution: The Court emphasized that occasional misuse of a law does not justify its dilution. Instead, misuse should be addressed on a case-by-case basis under existing legal provisions.

Final Ruling

The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, thereby restoring the original provisions of the SC/ST Act. The requirement for prior approval of arrests was removed, and the Court reaffirmed that FIRs in cases under the Act must be registered immediately without a preliminary inquiry.

This judgment is a landmark reaffirmation of the commitment to protecting the rights of SC/ST communities, ensuring that legal safeguards remain strong and effective against caste-based discrimination and violence.

Petitioner Name: Union of India.
Respondent Name: State of Maharashtra & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.R. Gavai.
Place Of Incident: Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 01-10-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Union of India vs State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 01-10-2019.pdf