PROJECT

ON

SPECIAL COURTS UNDER SCHEDULED CASTES AND

SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT, 1989: AN ANALYSIS
SUBMITTED TO:

Ms. Priyanka Dhar

Faculty of Criminal Law Hons. II

SUBMITTED BY:

Shubhankar Thakur
Roll no. 149

SECTION C

SEMESTER IX,

B.A. LLB (HONS.)

SUBMITTED ON:
October 24th, 2018

1
Acknowledgements
I feel highly elated to work on the project “Special courts under Scheduled castes and
Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: An Analysis”. Firstly I express my
deepest gratitude towards Ms. Priyanka Dhar , Faculty of Criminal Law Hons.II, to provide
me with the opportunity to work on this project. His able guidance ship and supervision in
terms of his lectures were of extreme help in understanding and carrying out the nuances of
this project.

I would also like to thank The University and the Vice Chancellor for providing extensive
database resources in the library and for the internet facilities provided by the University.

Some typography or printing errors might have crept in, which are deeply regretted. I would
be grateful to receive comments and suggestions to further improve this project.

Shubhankar Thakur

Semester IX

Section C

2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2

Introduction 4

Research Methodology 5

Constitutional Provisions and statutory provisions with respect to SCs &STs

(PoA) Act, 1989 7

Special Courts for the trail of atrocity cases 9

State government’s power to impose collective fine 13

Working of the designated special courts and the exclusive special court 15

Amendments 18

Conclusion 19

Bibliography 21

3
Introduction

Independent India, even after fifty seven years, is plagued by widespread discrimination
against the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Despite the Constitutional guarantees
seeking to protect and promote the interest of these groups, atrocities against them continue
to be on the rise, due to various historical, social, political and economic reasons. To redress
the situation, the Legislature, in its wisdom, has enacted various legislations-both preventive
and punitive-in an attempt to strike at the root of the problem. The political will
notwithstanding, the ground realities and the various stakeholders determine the success or
otherwise, of a social legislation such as the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989).
Any review of the enactment, therefore must take into account the voices of the various
stakeholders and also the overall socio-economic and political situation within which they
operate. Taking note of such a need, the Government has undertaken the task of evaluating
the functioning of the Act.

4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
a) Problem

Responding to the need for a legislation to prevent and punish the occurrence of atrocities
against the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, the government enacted the
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and subsequently the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Despite these special enactments being in
existence for more than a decade, the cases filed under the Act are on the rise. The National
Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes reported a total of 30,022 cases of
atrocities (under the SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989) in 2001, in the country. It must be noted here
that these are figures relating only to the reported cases and there are several cases which are
either under reported or unreported. It is imperative to examine why the vision of deterrence
and prevention envisaged by the Act, have not been realised. The Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (No 33 of 1989) came into force from
30-1-1990. The Act is a special legislation seeking to impose strict punishment for crimes
committed against SCs/STs, redressed through Special Courts set up for the purpose thus
ensuring speedy disposal of cases. While the larger vision under the enactment is creative and
progressive, several studies have indicated that administrative problems, financial bottlenecks
and a lack of sensitivity on the part of the police and the judiciary hamper the realization of
objectives of the enactment. Thus, the enactment has several areas that need further review
but this research is limited to examining the functioning of the Special Courts set up under
the Act. More particularly, the study compares the working of the Designated Special Courts
with that of the Exclusive Special Courts; examines the percentage of disposal of cases in
terms of convictions and acquittals; and evaluates the main causes and reasons for the
increasing crimes on SCs and STs.

b) Rationale

1. The average time taken by Exclusive Special Courts and other Designated Special Courts
to finalize cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989.

2. The percentage of convictions/acquittals under the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 between
Exclusive Special Courts and Designated Special Courts.

3. Special courts under SCs & STs (POA) Act,1989 helps in speedy trial of atrocity cases.

5
c) Objectives

1. Main causes/reasons for increasing crimes on SCs and STs, and

2. Disposal of cases by Designated Special Courts in comparison to the cases disposed
off by the Exclusive Special Courts along with percentage of convictions/acquittals.

d) Scope

The scope of this research project is to study the working of the Special Courts which were
set up under the provisions of SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, the Ministry
of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, has shown its commitment to
understand the causes for the inordinate delay in adjudicating the atrocity cases under the SCs
& STs (POA) Act, 1989, brought before the Special Courts and reasons behind the high rate
of acquittal orders passed by the Special Courts in atrocity cases registered under the SCs &
STs (POA) Act, 1989.

f) Nature of Study The nature of the project is purely doctrinal. Doctrinal research includes
studying books and established literature and not actually going to the field and doing
empirical research.

g) Sources of data The sources of this project are both primary and secondary sources.
Primary sources include the Constitution of India, case laws, etc. Whereas secondary sources
includes books given by different authors, journals, internet, etc.

h) Chapterisation Chapter I introduce the topic of the research work by explaining the about
the conditions of people of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Chapter II talks about
constitutional provisions and statutory provisions with regard to SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989.
Chapter III deals with special courts for atrocity cases. Chapter IV deals with state
government’s power to impose collective fine. Chapter V deals with working of special
courts and exclusive courts and amendments in the act.

6
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS WITH
SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989

Constitutional Scheme: The Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens social,
economic, educational and political justice, and equality of status and opportunity. For
achieving this, it provides for various safeguards and measures for the protection of the
deprived, weaker and marginalized sections of society. These safeguards and protective
measures may be classified into social, economic, political, administrative and monitoring
mechanisms. Specifically, the various provisions may be briefly listed under these broad
heads.

Article 14 states that the States shall not deny any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of laws within its territory. Article 15 operationalises the concept of substantive
equality as regards, women, children, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes.1 Article 17
seeks to abolish untouchability and forbids its practice in any form. While proscribing the
practice of untouchability, it provides for punishment under the law to anyone who indulges
in the practice of untouchability.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 The
preamble to the enactment clearly states that the objective of the enactment is to prevent the
commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes, to provide for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief
and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences. It would be useful to quote here a section
from the statement of objects and reasons, in order to extract from it, the political and
sociological understanding informing this enactment. “ Because of the awareness created
amongst the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes through spread of education, etc., they
are trying to assert their rights and this is not being taken very kindly by the others. When
they assert their rights and resist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutory
minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded labour, the vested interests try to cow them down
and terrorise them. When the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their
self-respect or honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty.
Occupation and cultivation of even the Government allotted land by Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes is resented and more often these people become victims of attacks by the

7
vested interests. Of late, there has been an increase in the disturbing trend of commission of
certain atrocities like making the Scheduled Castes persons eat inedible substances like
human excreta and attacks on and the mass killings of helpless Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and rape of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes.

In response to the situation of atrocities, particularly the need for speedy trials of atrocity
cases, section 14 PoA Act creates the obligation on the Indian state to establish Special
Courts in each of the 671 districts in the country to try offences under this Act. The Special
Court is to be manned by a Sessions Judge. Section 2(d) of the Act defi nes the Special
Courts as a Court of Sessions specifi ed as a Special Court in Section 14. Therefore, Sessions
Courts are designated as Special Courts only once a notifi cation is issued by the State
Government. This can be contrasted with the notion of Exclusive Special Courts, which are
separate courts created to solely try atrocity cases. Section 15 also establishes Special Public
Prosecutors (SPPs) – senior advocates practising law for not less than seven years – to
conduct cases in these courts. Moreover, each state government has the obligation, as per
section 21(2)(vi) PoA Act, to periodically survey the working of the provisions of this Act
(including provisions for Special Courts and SPPs) in their state, with a view to suggesting
measures for the better implementation of these provisions.

8
SPECIAL COURTS FOR THE TRAIL OF ATROCITY CASES

Chapter 4 of the act clearly states about the constitution of special courts for hearing cases on
atrocities against scheduled caste and scheduled tribes. For the purpose of providing for
speedy trial, the State Government shall with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High
Court, by notification in the official gazette, establish in each district a Court of Session to be
a Special Court exclusively to try the offences under this Act. Provided that in respect of
districts where there are no atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at all
the Government may, with the concurrence of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes, either exempt such district or districts from this provision or combine
such district(s) with any other neighbouring district(s) for the purpose of establishing
exclusive special courts. The special courts set up under this provision shall not be the same
as any of the existing courts of session.

The exclusive Special Courts shall try offences under this Act on day-to-day basis. Prof.
Jaffet (Department of Sociology, National Law School of India University, Nagarabhavi,
Bangalore) opines that exclusive special courts are functioning better than the normal
sessions court turned special courts in terms of conviction rates. The act further provides that
for every Special Court, the State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify a Public Prosecutor or appoint an advocate who has been in practice as an advocate
for not less than seven years, as a Special Public Prosecutor for the purpose of conducting
cases in that Court. P.S Krishnan, Former member secretary, National commission for
backward classes recommends that for every Special Court, the State Government shall, by
notification in the official gazette, appoint a Police Officer as Investigating Officer
exclusively for the purpose of investigation in respect of cases of offences under this Act.

Under Section 14 of SC & ST (PoA) Act 1989, the State Government is, for the purpose of
providing for speedy trial, empowered to constitute a court of session to be a special court for
each district to try the offense under this Act. However, such notification shall be (a) with the
concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, and (b) notified in the Official Gazette.
The Court of Sessions (designated Court) is specified to conduct a trial and no other Court
can conduct trial of the offence under the Act. However, the trial is valid only when it is on
the committal of the case by the Court of Magistrate having jurisdiction.

Whether Special Court has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint without committal by

Magistrate Court? The answer is ‘NO’. On this point of law the Punjab and Haryana High

9
Court in Raj Mal, Petitioner Vs Rathan Singh and another held that under section 14 of SC &
ST (PoA) Act, 1989 the special Court has power to take cognizance of the case and the case
need not be preceded by committal of case by Magistrate.

The court further observed that the learned counsel for the respondent accused of course,
contends that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint
directly. According to him, though he has been constituted as a Special Judge to punish
offences punishable under the Act, he could take cognizance of only such offences as are
committed by the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.

In this connection, he relied upon a decision of Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in
Mangli Prasad Vs. Additional Sessions Judge IInd1 which supports this contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner. But a single Judge of this Court in Davinder Singh
Sarpanch Vs. State of Punjab2, has taken the view that the Judicial Magistrate has no
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under this Act whereas the Special Court constituted
under section 14 of the Act can entertain the complaint and take cognizance and that it is not
necessary that the case must be committed to the Special Court by Magistrate as in other
Sessions cases.

The Court further observed that “In Moly V. State of Kerala3, the Supreme Court, while
considering the scope of S.14 of the SC/ST Act and following Vidydharan and Gangula
Ashok V. State of A.P.4 held “The Act contemplates only the trial to be conducted by the
Special Court. The added reason for specifying a Court of Session as a Special Court is to
ensure speed for such trial. ‘Special Court’ is defined in the Act as ‘a Court of Session
specified as a Special Court in S.14.’ Thus the Court of Session is specified to conduct a trial
and no other Court can conduct the trial of offences under the Act. In view of S.193 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, unless it is positively and specifically provided differently, no
Court of Session can take cognizance of any offence directly, without the case being
committed to it by a Magistrate. Neither in the Code nor in the Act is there any provision
whatsoever, nor given by implication, that the Special Court of Session (Special Court) can

1
(1996) 3 Rec Cri R 768: (1996 Cri LJ 3596)
2
(1997) 3 Rec Cri R 575
3
AIR 2004 SC 1890
4
(2002) 2 SCC 504

10
take cognizance of the offence under the Act as Court of original jurisdiction without the case
being committed to it by a Magistrate. If that be so, there is not reason to think that the charge
sheet or a complaint can straightway be filed before such Special Court for offences under the
Act.”

But again the Karnataka High Court in M.B.Ramachandran & another Vs State5, SC & ST
(PoA) Act 1989, the Special Court is empowered to take cognizance and try offences u/s 3 as
a court of original jurisdiction and need for committal by Magistrate of Karnataka held that
under Sec.14 (Karnataka Amendment by Act 35 of 2003) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act 1989, the
Special Court is empowered to take cognizance and try offences u/s 3 as a court of original
jurisdiction and need for committal by Magistrate has been done away with by amendment.
The court further observed that the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Gangula Ashok
and another V. State of Andhra Pradesh,6 is based on the original Act as it stood before
amendment. The provision has been amended subsequently, wherein the need for committal
by the Magistrate has been done away with. By the said Amendment the Special Court was
empowered to take the cognizance and try such offences as a Court of original jurisdiction.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 under section
3(1)(xi), conviction for offence by Special Court. Whether trail could be said to be vitiated
because Special Judge directly took cognizance without there being committal proceeding –
The answer is ‘NO.’ The Chhattisgarh High Court in Mahendra Kumar Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh7 held that “In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhooraji’s
case, I am of the considered view that the first submission, though on the face of it looks very
attractive, but upon close scrutiny I found it to be without substance or merit. In the present
case, the appellant had failed to point out any prejudice or disadvantage when the Special
Judge (Specified Judge) took the cognizance of the case without any committal order on the
basis of legal position adopted by the Full Bench of the M.P. High Court. The procedural
lapse would not render the Specified Judge incompetent to take cognizance.

Now the rule position is that a Special Court is not empowered to take cognizance of a
complaint without the case being committed to it.

5
2007 CRI. L.J. 489
6
AIR 2000 SC 740
7
2010 (1) Crimes 947 (Chhattisgarh).

11
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTORS UNDER THE ACT:

For every Special Court, the State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify a Public Prosecutor or appoint an advocate who has been practice as an advocate for
not less than seven years, as a Special Public Prosecutor for the purpose of conducting cases
in the Court.

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995, R.4 (5)
provides for appointment of advocate of choice of victim of atrocity who is also in opinion of
District Magistrate an eminent senior advocate. Appointment of senior advocate as a Special
Public Prosecutor for conducting trial at instance of victim.

Whether is there any conflict between R. 4(5) of Rules and S. 15 of the Act ?

‘No’, In Satki Devi V. Tikam Singh on this point the Court held that the State no doubt, is the
prosecutor and the prosecution in all cases and trial in all cases is to be conducted in the
Court of Session by Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor, as the case may be
appointed by the Government but the SCs & STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is a special
statue which overrides any other law for the time being in force, Plea was raised that, the
District Magistrate is empowered to appoint an advocate to plead the case of complainant but
he has no power to appoint Special Public Prosecutor, and that the power to appoint Special
Public Prosecutor under S. 15 of the Act vests in the State Government which cannot be
delegated.

The Special Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 15 of the Act vests in the State
Government which cannot be delegated. The Special Public Prosecutor appointed under
Section 15 of the Act alone can conduct the case. It is true that sub-rule (5) does not lay down
any qualification as to the minimum length of practice unlike S. 15 or sub-rule (1) of Rule 4
but, apparently, framers of the rule did not want to put any restriction on the choice of the
victims of atrocity subject to the embargo that the person should be an ‘eminent senior
advocate’ – a term used in subrule (1) of rule 4 as well. Thus, the advocate should be of the
choice of victim of atrocity and also in the opinion of the District Magistrate/Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, an eminent senior advocate. There is no conflict between sub-rule (5) of Rule 4
and section 15 of the Act.

12
STATE GOVERNMENT’S POWER TO IMPOSE COLLECTIVE FINE

The provision of Section 10-A of the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 (22 of 1955) shall
so far as may be, apply for the purposes of imposition and realization of collective fine and
for all other matters connected therewith under this Act. “Whether the Court is empowered to
permit composition of the offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 by invoking
the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure code, 1973 – The answer is
‘Yes.’ In Parambir Singh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur,8 the Punjab and Haryana High Court
accepted the compromise deal between the parties and the Court further held that the object
of the Act is to provide for prevention and punitive measures to protect the members of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from being victimized and where atrocities are
committed, to provide adequate relief and assistance to rehabilitate them. Besides, it is a
measure to preserve their self respect and honour. The fact that the matter has been
compromised does assuage the feelings of the members of the Scheduled Castes and provides
for protection of their self respect and honour. The compromise indeed is a measure to
provide adequate relief and assistance to members of the Scheduled Castes for their
rehabilitation and to live with dignity.

8
2010 (1) Crimes 626 (Punjab & Haryana).

13
PREVENTIVE ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY THE LAW AND ORDER MACHINERY
TO PREVENT THE COMMISSION OF ‘ATROCITIES’

A District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any order Executive Magistrate or

any Police Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police may, on receiving
information and after such inquiry as he may think necessary has reason to believe that a
person or a group of persons no belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes,
residing in or frequenting any place within the local limits of his jurisdiction is likely to
commit an offence or has threatened to commit any offence under this Act and is of the
opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, declare such an area to be an area
prone to atrocities and take necessary action for keeping the peace and good behavior and
maintenance of public order and tranquility and may take preventive action. In Raj Sundara
Babu Vs. Government of A.P.9 where writ petition praying for issuance of notification under
Section 17 (1) and (3) of the Act to declare Ambedkar I.D.W.A. Mahanagar Colony as “Area
prone to Atrocities” was filed it was held that policy of Government being to ensure people of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to mingle with other Sections of society, writ petition
is liable to be dismissed,

In this chapter the an attempt was made to explain about very important aspects of Act i.e.,
investigation and trial of atrocity cases, constitution of Special Courts, their powers and
procedural aspects, and the judicial decisions pronounced by the judiciary on the Act at
present.

9
2005 (1) ALD (Cri.) 258.

14
WORKING OF THE DESIGNATED SPECIAL COURTS AND THE EXCLUSIVE
SPECIAL COURT

Special Courts- a background: Section 2(d) defines “Special Court” as a Court of Session
specified as a special court in Section 14. Section 14 of the Act says that for the purpose of
providing speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice
of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a Court of
Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under the Act. Initially when the Act was
enacted there was no immediate notification designating the Session Courts to act as a
Special Court. In reality, the special courts do not exclusively deal with the atrocity cases
under the Act but they are equally required to handle other matters assigned to them, thus
affecting the prioritization of cases and the workload. This Chapter analyses the working of
the Designated Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts. The main thrust of the study is
to evaluate the performance of the Exclusive Special Courts compared to the Designated
Special Courts and also to find out the reasons for delay in adjudicating the cases by these
Special Courts.

GROUNDS FOR JUDGEMENTS

The following are the major grounds of acquittal found on analysis of the judgements.

A. PROCEDURAL GROUNDS:

1. Investigation not done by the competent Authority: Rule 7 PoA Rules states that the
investigation of atrocity cases has to be done by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).
Hence, acquittals resulted due to the fact that the investigation was not done by the competent
authority (in one case), or there was no proof of authorisation on the part of the Investigating
Offi cer to investigate the case (in one case).

2. Delay in filing First Information Report: Even though that the judge has the discretion to
condone the delay in fi ling of the FIR, it was found in one judgment that the Judge had
mentioned the delay in fi ling the FIR and this was successfully taken up by the accused to
escape a conviction.

15
3. Offence not committed on grounds of being SC/ST: In four cases of acquittals where sec.
3(2)(v) PoA Act was the charge, the courts judged that the offence was not committed “on
the ground of victim being SC or ST” as required under that legal section. As a consequence,
sec. 3(2)(v) was held to be not applicable. B. SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS: 4. Victim and
witnesses denying the incident/statement/complaint during examination: In seven atrocity
cases the victim had given a complaint to the police immediately after the incident. In order
to prove the prosecution case, the victim is required to repeat and state before the court her/
his earlier statement or complaint during the trial itself. However, in these cases the victim or
witnesses denied either the incident or their statements given to the police. Thus, for not
supporting the prosecution’s case, these victims and witnesses were declared hostile.

5. Statements of victims/witnesses entirely different from the previous statements made

before the police: In one case, the witness had given a statement to the police soon after the
incident. However, once in court, they decided to not repeat the contents of this statement and
instead gave a version of the facts that was insufficient to help establish the guilt of the
accused.

6. Statements of some of the witnesses not corroborated by other witnesses: In two cases the
judges found that statements given by the victims and witnesses did not corroborate the
statements of other witnesses and thus did not support the prosecution’s case.

7. Interested witnesses: In one case, the evidence of the witnesses was not considered by the
judges as the witnesses were related to the complainant. The ground taken by the Court was
that some of the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses as they belong to the victim’s
family and, therefore, are not reliable. Under these circumstances, the accused were
acquitted.

One conclusion from the above grounds for judgements in the Special Courts is that the
courts need to understand that technical violations by police are not automatic grounds for
acquittal. Procedural rules for investigations are safeguards meant to ensure impartial
practices, not to provide additional grounds to terminate a case. The Supreme Court of India
has echoed this sentiment in case of Kailash and Others vs. State of Maharashtra,10 where it
observed that courts should not reject cases on hyper-technicalities such as the investigation
was not done by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

10
Kailas and Ors vs. State of Maharashtra, judgement dated 05.01.2011 arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Crl) No. 10367 of 2010, Supreme Court of India.

16
REASONS FOR HIGH PENDENCY OF CASES

The rationale for setting up the Special Courts under sec. 14 PoA Act was to ensure the
speedy trial of atrocity cases. However, a number of factors lie behind the high rate of
pendency of cases and low rate of convictions in the Special Courts trying atrocity cases.
Despite the Supreme Court’s judgement76 linking the right to speedy trial (a manifestation of
fair, just and reasonable procedure) with the right to life enshrined in Article 21 Indian
Constitution, most atrocity cases under trial have protracted hearings at every stage of the
case, including the stage of framing of charges.

One factor is that trials become delayed in the absence of judges appointed to the Special
Courts, or if the judge is on leave, or if the judge has to attend any legal awareness
programmes such as those organised by the State Legal Services Authority.

Along the same lines, a second factor for delays in atrocity trials is the absence of the Special
Public Prosecutors (SPPs) or their lack of full attention to atrocity cases. These absences are
primarily due to illnesses, requiring both short and long-term absences.

A third factor is the volume of cases before especially the Exclusive Special Courts. As
previously mentioned, this is exacerbated by the fact that all these courts, both exclusive and
designated courts, take on the trials of other non-atrocity cases as well. Hence, court
observations revealed that often the judge does not have time to go through the case records
before the hearing, or is busy with other non-atrocity cases listed in his/her court.

A fourth and related factor is that many cases undergo a large number of adjournments at
every stage. Sec. 309 Code of Criminal Procedure specifies day-to-day trial proceedings until
all the witnesses have been examined. Adjournments should only be granted in specific
circumstances beyond the control of the party, not on request. In reality, however,
adjournments are frequent.

17
AMENDMENTS

The amendments to the act also mandate establishment of exclusive Special Courts and
appointment of Exclusive Special Public Prosecutors to try the offences under this act. This is
made to enable speedy justice and expeditious disposal of cases. The Special Courts have
been authorized to take direct cognizance of offence and as far as possible, completion of trial
of the case within two months, from the date of filing of the charge sheet. The State
Governments have been asked to prepare a panel of senior advocates who have been in
practice for not less than seven years for each District, for conducting the cases filed under
this Act.

The State Governments have also been asked to review the performance of these advocates at
least twice in a calendar year. They are also asked to review various reports received,
investigation made and preventive steps taken by the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional
Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, relief and rehabilitation facilities provided to the
victims etc.

However, the most striking data is that all the Special Courts, whether designated or
exclusive, are trying non-SC/ST atrocity cases in addition to atrocity cases. In other words,
Exclusive Special Courts are not functioning as exclusive courts in reality. This seems to be
occurring regardless of the high number of atrocity cases pending trial before the Exclusive
Special Courts. Note that the current situation contradicts a statement from one Director of
Public Prosecutions that only where a small number of atrocity cases exists in a district do the
Special Courts try other types of cases as well. The significance of this finding is that, as the
example of Alwar Special Court closest shows, if the courts did function as Exclusive Special
Courts taking up only atrocity cases, they could easily try a larger number of such cases each
year and help bring speedy justice to a greater number of victims.

18
CONCLUSION

It is imperative that in order that people may not lose faith in the administration of criminal
justice, no one should be allowed to subvert the legal process. No citizen should go away
with the feeling that [s]he could not get justice from the court because the other side was
socially, economically or politically powerful and could manipulate the legal process. That
would subvert the rule of law.11

 The need for Exclusive Special Courts, Judges and SPPS

Section 14 PoA Act currently provides for a contradiction to arise. On the one hand, it
creates Special Courts to ensure the right to speedy trial for SC/ ST victims of atrocities.
On the other hand, it talks only of Sessions Courts being designated as Special Courts,
meaning that they take up atrocity cases in addition to their already huge case load.

 The need for mechanisms to monitor and address discrimination and other obstructions in
the court processes
In line with international standards on equal access to justice and legal remedies, two
complementary Constitutional provisions mandate the right to equality before the law and
equal protection of the law, and the duty of the Indian State to secure the operation of a
legal system that promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity. Hence, Dalit and
Adivasi citizens of the country have the right to equal access to legal remedies through
the Special Courts. This has to be facilitated by the existence and effective operation of
monitoring mechanisms as well as mechanisms to both prevent and redress discrimination
and other obstructions.
 The need for guidelines on the effective functioning of special courts
Interlinked with the need for mechanisms to monitor and address the obstructions in the
Special Courts is the need for clear guidelines at all stages of trial procedure, in order to
eradicate current court practices that delay or dilute the spirit of the PoA Act.

11
Sunil Kumar Pal vs. Phota Sheikh [(1984) 4 SCC 533]

19
Recommendations

• Amend the PoA Act to include the following necessary provisions for strengthening
the effective enforcement of the Act:
• Establish Exclusive Special Courts and exclusive Special Public Prosecutors in the
districts to exclusively try atrocity cases under the PoA Act.
• Introduce a timeframe of 120 days for the completion of trial from the date of taking
cognisance of the offence in order to ensure speedy justice to the victims.
• Specify the powers and responsibilities of the Special Courts, including to explain to
the victims about their rights during the trials, and to assess the requirement for
protection and security for victims and witnesses throughout the trial.
• Provide for victims and witnesses’ rights, including the right to protection from
intimidation and harassment; the right to information on the status of investigation
and charge sheet preparation; the right to information on relief and rehabilitation, as
well as travelling and maintenance allowances to attend trial hearings; the right to a
pre-trial visit to the court to become familiar with the legal process; the right to be
informed in advance of the dates and places of trial; the right to an adequate briefing
on the case and preparation for trial, including information on criminal justice
procedures; the right to information about legal aid; the right to an experienced SPP,
even a SPP of the victim’s choice.
• Spell out specific police actions or inactions – including the failure to register a FIR
– as “wilful negligence” punishable under the Act.

20
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 P.K. Gupta, Commentaries on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989
 Study on performance of Special courts set up under the SC ST Prevention of Atrocity
Act By: Centre for Study of Casteism, Communalism and Law (CSCCL), National Law
School, Bangalore, India
 Commentary on the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (33 of 1989) by Narayana P.S, Asian Law House-1991
 Dalit rights: Land mark judgements on SC/ST/backward classes by M.J Antony, Indian
Social Institution-1997

21