Not every ‘insult’ against SC/ST can be considered as offence

The Supreme Court recently ruled on a significant issue concerning the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The ruling addresses whether mere insults or intimidations directed at individuals from SC or ST communities automatically qualify as offenses under the SC/ST Act.

1. This judgment emerged in the context of an anticipatory bail application by a YouTube channel editor accused under the SC/ST Act for derogatory remarks about a SC MLA.

Key Aspects of the Supreme Court Ruling

1. Case Background:

1. Allegations: The YouTube editor was accused of making derogatory remarks against a SC MLA.
2. Issue: Whether such remarks constitute an offense under the SC/ST Act.

2. SC Ruling:

1. Scope of the Act: The Court clarified that insults or intimidations directed at SCs or STs do not automatically fall under the SC/ST Act.
2. Link to Caste Identity: For an offense to be recognized under the Act, the insult or intimidation must specifically target the caste identity of the victim.
3. Interpretation of 'Intent to Humiliate': Under Section 3(1)(r), 'intent to humiliate' must be closely tied to the victim's caste identity. Knowing the victim's SC/ST status is not sufficient; the intent must be to humiliate based on caste.
4. Clarification on Section 18: The Court noted that Section 18 of the Act, which traditionally bars anticipatory bail, does not preclude the granting of such bail entirely. A preliminary inquiry is required to determine if the allegations meet the Act’s criteria.
5. Decision on Bail: The Court granted anticipatory bail to the editor, finding no prima facie evidence of caste-based humiliation.

About the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 1. Purpose and Background: Objective: To protect SCs and STs from caste-based discrimination and violence. Constitutional Basis: Rooted in Articles 15 and 17 of the Indian Constitution. Historical Context: Builds on earlier laws aimed at eradicating untouchability and discrimination (Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955; Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955). 2. Key Provisions: Definition of Offenses: Includes physical violence, harassment, and social discrimination against SCs and STs. Penalties: Prescribes higher penalties compared to the Indian Penal Code. Anticipatory Bail: Section 18 excludes anticipatory bail provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Special Courts and Protection Cells: Establishes special courts and SC/ST Protection Cells for effective implementation. Investigation Requirements: Mandates investigations by officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). 3. Recent Amendments: 2015 Amendment: Added new offenses and stricter penalties. Included crimes such as garlanding with footwear and manual scavenging. 2018 Amendment: Removed the requirement for Senior Superintendent of Police approval for arrests, allowing immediate arrests.

Drawbacks of the SC/ST Act, 1989:

1. In adequate Resources:

• Special Courts: Often lack sufficient resources, leading to case backlogs and delays.

2. Insufficient Rehabilitation:

• Support Measures: Limited focus on comprehensive victim rehabilitation beyond economic and social support.

3. Lack of Awareness:

• Beneficiaries and Officials: Limited awareness among victims and law enforcement about the Act’s provisions.

4. Misuse and Scope:

1. Allegations of Misuse: The broad scope can lead to false accusations and misuse.
2. Coverage of Crimes: Certain crimes, such as blackmailing leading to atrocities, are not explicitly covered.

Judicial Insights:

1. Kanubhai M. Parmar v. State of Gujarat, 2000: Act does not apply to crimes between SCs or STs; meant to protect from atrocities by non-SCs/STs.

2. Raj Mal v. Ratan Singh, 1988: Special Courts under the Act are exclusive for such offenses, not to be confused with regular courts.

3. Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2011: Insulting a SC/ST member constitutes an offense under the Act.

4. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2018: Section 18 does not absolutely bar anticipatory bail; courts can grant it in certain cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's recent ruling on the SC/ST Act clarifies that not every insult or threat against SCs or STs qualifies as an offense under the Act. The Court emphasizes applying the law carefully to prevent misuse while addressing genuine caste-based discrimination. It stresses the need for effective implementation, including functioning special courts and protection cells, and calls for ongoing review and reform to ensure the Act is just and effective.

Must Check: Best IAS Coaching In Delhi

UPSC Prelims Result 2024 Out: Expected Cut Off & Other Details, UPSC Prelims 2024 Answer with Explanation, Daily Prelims Quiz, Daily Current Affairs, MONTHLY CURRENT AFFAIRS TOTAL (CAT) MAGAZINE, Best IAS Coaching Institute in Karol Bagh, Best IAS Coaching Institute in Delhi, Daily Mains Question Answer Practice, ENSURE IAS UPSC Toppers, UPSC Toppers Marksheet, Previous Year Interview Questions, UPSC Syllabus