1. PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 1955.

2. SCHEDULE CASTE & SCHEDULE TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)

ACT, 1989.

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................4
2. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS..........................................................................5
3. CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS..........................................................................7
4. ROLE OF JUDICIARY...............................................................................................10
5. LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS................................................................................11
6. PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1955..........................................................13
7. SCHEDULE CASTE & SCHEDULE TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT 1989.....................................................................................................................21

1
 1. INTRODUCTION
Caste discrimination and caste based offences have been there in Indian society for
centuries. They are probably one of the oldest forms of collective atrocities in the history of
human civilisation. The problem is so old and deep rooted that even in this peak era of
science and technology, the discrimination based on caste continues. If we go on tracing the
evolution of such discriminatory practices, we will come to know that the concept of ‘caste-
system’ has prevailed in India since early vedic period. Society, for its governance, was
divided into four ‘varnas’. However, it is interesting to note that, the basis of the
classification into these varnas was different in different era. In the early vedic period, the
basis of classification was ‘karma’, i.e. all priests, scholars and teachers were put under the
category of ‘Brahmans’; the warriers and administrators were ‘Kshatriyas’; the agriculturists
and merchants were categorised as ‘Vaishayas’ and lastly, the labourers and service providers
were known as ‘shudras’. But, on the other hand, in the later vedic era, the basis of the
classification changed from ‘karma’ to ‘janma’. This consequently led to the evolution of
untouchability and discrimination in the society.

From olden times, untouchability has been practiced in varied forms, for example,

o The dalits were mandated to live outside the village

o They were not allowed to enter temple or draw water from the village well
o Menial jobs, such as scavenging, tanning, flaying, removing carcass etc were reserved
for them
o Even the look or a shadow was considered as contaminating or polluting

Even today, dalits who constitute a major portion of the Indian population are subjected
to all sorts of prejudices and oppression. Incidents like dalit lynching, naked parading,
witchcraft allegation etc are very common now-a-days. The Constitution of India, in the
preamble itself talks about social equality and social justice. However the issue of ‘social
exclusion’ has travelled through a long span of time and involves the relegating of a large
portion of Indian population called ‘dalits’ to a position, where not only the basic human
rights are made a distant dream but even the right to be a human is denied to them with
impunity.

2
 2. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

The concept of Human Rights in the International arena had witnessed with the
landmark changes for the growth of the society. Being born as a human, an individual has
some inherent Human Rights which ensure dignity and equality. India being a signatory to
such International Conventions which uphold the rights of people and prohibits
Untouchability or various forms of discrimination has inscribed those rights and remedies
under its domestic laws.

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (U.D.H.R.), 19481

The Aims and Objectives of UDHR has been incorporated under the Fundamental
rights and Directive Principles of State policy of the Constitution of India which ensures
protection of dignity and equality inherent in all human beings as they all are born free and
pledged to promote and encourage respect for observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms of all groups of people without any kind of distinction on the basis of race, color,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or
other status.

2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19662

This convention not only protects Discrimination of any kind including social origin
based discrimination but also protects any kind of torture, degrading treatment, arbitrary
arrest and detention (if unlawful compensation to the victim), and promotes equality in the
courts, liberty, security of a person and equal protection of the law and prohibits
discrimination on any ground. All the Countries which are parties to this covenant will ensure
the rights of the individual within their jurisdiction by adopting adequate legislation for the
schedule castes and schedule tribes.

3. International Covenant on Social and Economic and Cultural Rights, 19663

The above convention recognizes fair and equal social political and cultural rights for
work without any kind of discrimination. For example the right to equal pay and equal work
1
www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ as accessed on April 21, 2018.
2
www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx last accessed on April 21, 2018.
3
www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/Cescr.aspx last accessed on April 21, 2018.

3
comes under this category. The covenant allows the people for an international right to follow
their social and cultural right, and they cannot be discriminated or treated unequally.
Everyone is provided with equal political, social and economic cultural right.

4. International Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, 19654

The State under this Convention had an obligation to prohibit or give effective
protection and bring to an end the racial discrimination (in India with reference to SC/STs)
done by any person or any group of organization by all appropriate means including passing
any laws so that they can enjoy their civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.

5. Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or

Belief, 19815
The above declaration is a resolution to adapt the speedy yet necessary measures to
eliminate or abolish any discriminatory practices that take place in the name of religious
tolerance or belief. While the rest of the Conventions emphasize that all humans are born
equal in dignity and right and are integral part of humanity. There is no scientific basis of
presumed superiority or inferiority and hence, if done, it infringes the moral and ethical
principles of humanity. Because of the discrimination practice an anti social belief emerges
which stops the growth of the victim as an individual.

These are the various international laws in addition to the Indian domestic laws for
securing the dalits rights and provide protection against the mistreatment.

4
www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx last accessed on April 21, 2018.
5
www.un.org/documents/ga/res/36/a36r055.htm last accessed on April 21, 2018.

4
 3. CONATITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS
In the pre-independent era, not much significant was done with regard to raising the status
of dalits in the Indian society was concerned. However, after the coming into force the
Constitution of India, various safeguards ware laid down for the protection of dalits. The
constitution of India contains special provision and safeguards provided to Member of
Scheduled Castes under its various Articles. These safeguards are in the nature of protective
from discrimination for their Educational, Economic, Social, Political and reservation
benefits and for their overall development. The safeguards provided to Scheduled Castes are
grouped in the following broad heads:

1. Social Safeguards
2. Economic Safeguards
3. Educational & Cultural Safeguards
4. Political Safeguards
5. Service Safeguards
6. Other Safeguards

SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS:

1. Article 17: it relates to abolition of untouchability being practiced in the society. The
Parliament also enacted the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to tackle the
problem of untouchability being practiced against Scheduled Castes.
2. Article 23: this prohibits human trafficking and begar and other similar forms of
forced labour and provides that any contravention of this provision shall be a
punishable offence. Although this article is not specifically articulated for the SCs and
STs but because majority of bonded labour is from SCs so it holds significance for
them.
3. Article 25 (2)(b) : it provides that Hindu religious institutions of a public character
shall be opened to all classes and sections of Hindu.

ECONOMIC SAFEGUARDS:

5
Article 46 : it provides ,”The state shall promote with special care the educational and
economic interest of the weaker sections of the people, and in particular, of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of
exploitation.”

EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL SAFEGUARDS:

1. Article 15(4): it empowers the State to make special provisions for the advancement
of any socially and educationally backward class of the citizens and for SCs. This
article enabled the State to reserve seats for SCs in educational institutions.
2. Article 335: Allows relaxation in qualifying marks for admission in educational
institutes or promotions for SCs/STs.

POLITICAL SAFEGUARDS

1. Article 243D: Reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
in every Panchayat.
2. Article 243T: Reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
in every Municipality.
3. Article 330: Reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
in the House of the People.
4. Article 332: Reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
in the Legislative Assemblies of the States.
5. Article 334: Reservation of seats and the special representation to cease after sixty
years.

ECONOMIC & SERVICE SAFEGAURDS

1. Article 16(4): This clause allows the state to reserve vacancies in public service for
any backward classes of the state that are not adequately represented in the public
services.

6
 2. Article 16 (4A): This allows the state to implement reservation in the matter of
promotion for SCs and STs.
3. Article 16(4B): This allows the state to consider unfilled vacancies reserved for
backward classes as a separate class of vacancies not subject to a limit of 50%
reservation.

OTHER SAFEGUARDS

1. Article 164: Appoint special minister for tribal welfare in the states of MP, Bihar,
Jharkhand and Orrisa.
2. Article 275: Allows special grant in aids to states for tribal welfare.
3. Article 338/338A/339: Establishes a National Commission of SCs and STs. Article
339 allows the central govt. to direct states to implement and execute plans for the
betterment of SC/STs.
4. Article 340: Allows the president to appoint a commission to investigate the condition
of socially and economically backward classes and table the report in the parliament.

4. ROLE OF JUDICIARY
Protective discrimination is one of the important methods through which
Constitutional goals like social and economic justice can be secured to the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes. In India the part of Judiciary securing the enthusiasm of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes is well illustrated by its judgments. Thus the judiciary has
played a proactive role in securing the rights of SC/ST community in India.

7
 In Manju Devi v. Onkarnath Singh Ahluwalia and others (March 2017), the Court
held that the use of terms like ‘harijan’ or ‘dalit’ is itself derogatory. It is often done by the
people belonging to so called upper caste as words of insult, abuse and derision.

In Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (July 2006), the Supreme Court
categorically observed that the caste system is a curse to the nation and the sooner it is
eradicated, the better it is for our nation. It is dividing the nation at a time when we are
required to be united to face the challenges. Hence inter-caste marriages are infact in the
national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system.

In Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & others (March 2018), the Supreme Court held
that when two adults marry out of their volition, irrespective of their caste or religious
differences, no consent of family, community, clan, khap whatsoever is required. Thus the
right to choose a life partner was held to be a fundamental right under article 21 of the
Constitution.

In Safai Karamchari Andolan & others v. Union of India (2003), the Supreme Court
observed that manual scavengers are considered as ‘untouchable’ by the mainstream castes
and are subjected to various social and economic exploitation. Thus the Court directed all the
state to abolish the practice of manual scavenging and take step for the rehabilitation of the
workers. It also directed the railway department to make strategy to end manual scavenging
on tracks. The court further held that in cases of sewer deaths, a compensation of Rs. 10 lakh
is to be given to the family of the deceased.

In Delhi Jal Board v. National Campaign for Dignity & Rights of Sewerage &
Allied Workers & others (2011), it was held that the sewage workers must be treated with
dignity. They must be provided with life saving equipments such as helmets, gas masks etc,
as per the NHRC guidelines. The must be provided medical facilities on an urgent basis and
compensation in case of death.

Thus the judiciary has not been lagging behind in removing the atrocities against dalits
but has done an immense commendable work through various monumental and celebrated
decisions for the upliftment of the conditions of these weaker sections. The courts have taken
a very serious view in respect of untouchability.

8
 5. LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS
Besides the Constitutional rights and the rights endowed by the judiciary, there are
other legal rights that extend the scope of ‘positive discrimination’ in favour of the Schedule
Caste and Schedule Tribe community. This is because they prescribe penalties that are more
stringent than the penalties for corresponding offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Article 17 of Indian Constitution seeks to abolish 'untouchability' and to forbid all

such practices. It is basically a "statement of principle" that needs to be made operational
with the ostensible objective to remove humiliation and multifaceted harassments meted to
the Dalits and to ensure their fundamental and socio-economic, political, and cultural rights.
This is to free Indian society from blind and irrational adherence to traditional beliefs and to
establish a bias free society.

Article 17 of the Constitution of India, in Part III, made an epoch making declaration
that 'Untouchability' is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement
of any disability arising out of "Untouchability" shall be an offence punishable in accordance
with law. Article 17 of the Constitution is on the lines of the provisions of Article 2 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a very important and significant provision from
the point of view of equality before law. It guarantees social justice, (which has now been
held by Supreme Court as fundamental Right), 6 and dignity of man, the twin privileges which
were denied to a vast section of the Indian society for centuries together7.

The Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale8, the first
case before it on "Untouchability" held that the purpose of Article 17 of the Constitution is to
establish new ideal for society based on principle of egalitarianism. As per K. Ramaswamy
J.9 "the thrust of Article 17 is to liberate the society from blind and ritualistic adherence and
traditional beliefs which lost all legal or moral base. It seeks to establish new ideal for
society-equality to the Dalits as par with general public, absence of disabilities, restrictions
or prohibitions on grounds of caste or religion, availability of opportunities and a sense of
being a participant in the main stream of National life."

6
Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. (1997) 5 SCC 201 (Para 26)
7
Lai, Shyam & Saxena, K.S. Ambedkar and Nation Building (New Delhi, Rawat Publications- 1998) p.259
8
Cr. L.R(1993)p.72
9
Ibid.

9
 Rajasthan High Court in Jai Singh v. Union of India10 held that Article 17 of the
Constitution is similar to the 13th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
America which abolished slavery.

Article 17, as discussed earlier, is a statement of principle. So it cannot be read in

isolation. It has to be read with article 35 of the Constitution. Article 35 is an enabling
provision that gives the Parliament the exclusive power to enact laws for prescribing
punishments for those acts which are declared to be an offence under Part III of the
Constitution. Thus in furtherance of articles 17 and 35, the Parliament enacted two
groundbreaking legislations for the welfare of SC/ST community in India. These legislations
are a part of continuing effort to ensure that the aims of article 17 are fully realised.

1. Untouchability (Offences) Act 1955, amended in 1976 as the Protection of Civil

Rights Act 1955
2. Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, amended in
2016.

[Note: The Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 deals with ‘untouchability’ and removal of
disabilities and is applicable only in respect to the Schedule Castes and not Schedule Tribe.
This is because the Schedule Castes are the community who have had a long history of
untouchability. On the other hand, Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989 is applicable with respect to both Schedule Castes as well as the
Schedule Tribes.]

6. PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1955

6.1. LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

The Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 was passed in the form of Untouchability
(Offences) Act 1955. In 1965, the Government of India constituted a Committee under the
chairmanship of L. Elayaperumal to study the working of the Untouchability (Offences) Act
1955. An examination of the working of the Untouchability (Offences) Act showed that its
implementation was inadequate because of various loopholes. The Elayaperumal Committee
submitted a comprehensive report studying the implementation of the Untouchability
(Offences) Act and examining ways and means of strengthening the substantive and
10
AIR 1993 Raj 177 p.181-182

10
institutional content thereof. The main recommendations of the Committee are discussed
below.

a. Compoundable Offences: The offences under Untouchability (Offences) Act were

compoundable in nature. The Committee found that this provision served as a handy
tool for coercing the accused to arrive at a compromise with the complainant by
means of threats, promises or bribes. The Committee recommended the deletion of the
provision which was accepted by the Parliament.
b. Punishments: The Elayaperumal Committee was of the opinion that the punishments
imposed under the Act were too light and without any minimum requirements. It
suggested a minimum imprisonment term of 3 months up to 6 months.
c. Analysis of Cases Decided by Lower Courts: The Committee found that the longer
the delay in disposal of cases, lower was the rate of conviction. The Committee had
heard of instances where cases had been purposely delayed to cause hardship to
complainants so that they would not have either the energy or the resources to pursue
the case. The Committee observed that the upper castes enjoyed the support of law
enforcement officials like the police and magistrates, and that the Scheduled Castes
would not get any protection from them. Thus the Elayaperumal Committee asked
State Governments to provide details of the cases decided by the lower courts as well
as copies of the judgments to arrive at definite conclusions.
d. Awareness of Legislation: The Committee found that there was very little awareness
and wide ignorance about the provisions of the Untouchability Offences Act.

The Untouchability (offences) 1955 was comprehensively Amended in 1976 on the

recommendation of the Elayaperumal committee and its name changed to Protection of Civil
Rights Act.

6.2. DISABILITIES UNDER THE ACT

a. Religious Disabilities (Section 3)

Anyone who stops any person on ground of Untouchability in any of the
following ways:
i. To enter into the place of worship where any other person of the same
religion is allowed

11
 ii. To worship, to offer prayers or to perform any religious ceremony or offer
any religious service or bath at worship place or to use water from the
sacred tank, spring well or from any other source, in the same manner as
any other person of same religion is allowed to do.
Punishment -: Such person shall be punished with the imprisonment for the term
of minimum one month but not exceeding 6 months along with the fine of
minimum Rs. 100 but not more than Rs. 500.

Kandra Sethi v. Metra Sahu and Others,11 - Section 3 only includes public
worship and not private worship. Hence, where the function was a private one and
it was not a place worship and the prevention of the complainant was not on the
basis of his being an untouchable as people of his caste were allowed to
participate in the function, the case did not come under section 3 of the said Act.

In N. Adithayan v. The Travancore Devaswom Board and Other12, an institution

was started to impart training to students joining the institution in all relevant
Vedic texts, rites, religious observances and modes of worship and for same
scholars were to be appointed. One other essential condition for the appointment
of a priest was that the person concerned should have been Brahmin by birth or
pedigree. The Supreme Court held that any such condition is violative of Section
3 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution.

b. Social Disabilities (Section 4)

Whoever discriminates any person on the ground of Untouchability in any way
such as-:
i. Access to shop, hotel, restaurant, place of public entertainment ;
ii. Use of utensil which are provided in the hotels, dharamshala or any
other public place for the use of general public or for a specific class of
people;
iii. To practice any profession or carry out any of the occupation, business
or trade;

11
ILR (1963) cal 455.
12
AIR 2002 SC 3538.

12
 iv. The use of water from spring well, tank, river, stream, water taps or any
water place, or stops using bathing ghat, sanitary convenience, burial or
cremation ground, road, passage or other thing meant for general public.
v. Use and access to any public places such as park etc which are
maintained by the funds of State for the use of general public.
vi. Enjoyment of the benefits arising from the charitable trust created for
general public.
vii. Use and access to public conveyance; viii. To construct, acquire any of
the residential premises in any locality;
viii. Use of places such as dharamshala, sarai or musafirkhana meant for the
use of general public;
ix. To practice any of the custom, cultural or religious ceremony; xi. To use
any jewellery or finery.

Punishment -: Such person shall be punished with the imprisonment for the term
of atleast one month but not exceeding 6 months along with the fine of atleast
100 Rs. but not more than Rs. 500.

Benudhas Sahu v. State,13 -The court held that Section 4(iv) does not apply to
private wells because the owner of private well being free to regulate the use of
well by co-villagers. If the owner of private well permitted other people in the
village to draw water from the well, it does not means that every villager has a
right of access to or right to use the well.

c. Refusing admission (Section 5)

Whoever on the ground of Untouchability denies a person admission or
discriminates the person after admission in the following places:
i. Hospital
ii. Educational Institution
iii. Hostel which are meant for the use and access to general public.
Punishment -: Such person
i. Shall be punished with the imprisonment for the term of atleast one
month but not exceeding 6 months along with the fine of atleast 100 Rs.
but not more than Rs. 500.
13
ILR(1962)Cut256.

13
 ii. shall not be entitled with the grants given by the Government and shall
be suspended from that service as the Court may deem fit.

d. Refusing to sell goods or render services (Section 6)

Whoever on the ground of Untouchability refuses or discriminates a person in
selling goods or in rendering services with the same terms and conditions in
which they rendered to the general public in the ordinary course of business.
Punishment -: Such person
i. Shall be punished with the imprisonment for the term of atleast one
month but not exceeding 6 months along with the fine of atleast 100 Rs.
but not more than Rs. 500.
ii. Also the License of such person shall be cancelled for the time as the
Court may deem fit.

Dul Chand v. State14,- The court held that if accused refused to cut hair of the
complainant only on the ground that he was ‘untouchable’ it was considered to
be an act punishable under section 6 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

e. Other offences arising out of untouchability (Section 7)

1. Such person shall be punishable under law who does any of the following:
a) Prevents any person from acquiring rights provided under Art 17 of the
Constitution of India; or,
b) Molests, insults, boycotts30 or create an obstruction in exercising the right;
or
c) Molests, insults, boycotts any person who has exercised his rights; or
d) By any manner, spoken or written encourages or incites any person to
practice “Untouchability”; or
e) Insults or attempts to insult any person on the ground of “Untouchability”

2. The person
a) Who on the ground of “Untouchability” denies any person the rights and
privileges available to that person being a part of that community; or,
14
1963 MPLJ (Notes) 52.

14
 b) Who excommunicates with the person who has denied to practice
“Untouchability”.
Punishment -: Such person shall be punished with the imprisonment for the term
of atleast one month but not exceeding 6 months along with the fine of atleast
100 Rs. but not more than Rs. 500.
Subasini Babankate v. State of Maharashtra15, the accused told the
complainant to leave a particular locality because he was belonging Chamar
category and all other residents of the locality belonged to Maratha community.
The court held that accused insulted the complainant on the ground of
‘untouchability’ a member of Scheduled Caste and hence, the accused is liable
under Section 7(1)(d) of the Act.
Patel Lilabhai Hirabhai v. State of Gujrat 16- Addresseing a Scheduled Caste
person by words ‘sala dheda keep away, you have to polluted us’ while reading
newspaper in public library were considered to be injurious, annoying and
insulting in term of Section 7(1)(b) and Section 7(1)(d) of Act.

f. Compelling Forces Labour (Section 7-A)

Whoever compels any person to Sweep, scavenge, or to remove any carcass or
to flay any animal or to remove the umbilical cord or to do any other job of a
similar nature.
Punishment -: Such person shall be deemed to have practice “Untouchability”
and shall be punished with the imprisonment for the term of atleast three months
but not exceeding 6 months along with the fine of atleast 100 Rs. but not more
than Rs. 500.

g. Abetment of offences (Section 10)

Whoever abets any offence under this Act shall be punishable with
punishment provided for the offence.

15
1985 MahLR 341.
16
(1979) Cri LJ(Guj)44.

15
 Explanation – A public servant who wilfully neglects the investigation of any
offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to have abetted an offence
punishment under this Act.

h. Offences done by Company (Section 14)

i. If any person who on the behalf of the Company has practiced
“Untouchability”; or
ii. If the Director, Manager, Secretary or any other official of the Company
would have practiced “Untouchability”.
Punishment -: Such person may be Director, Manager, Secretary or any other
Official of the Company shall be deemed to be guilty on behalf of the Company
and shall be prosecuted for the offence.

6.3. ADDITIONAL PENALTIES

a. Cancellation/Suspension of Licences (Section 8)

When a person who is convicted of an offence under Section 6 holds any license
in respect of any profession, trade, or employment in relation to which the
offence is committed, the court trying the offence may, direct that the license
shall stand cancelled or be suspended for such period as the court may deem fit.

b. Resumption/ Suspension of Grants made by the Government (Section 9)

Where the manager or trustee of a place of public worship or any educational
institution which is in receipt of a grant of land or money from the Government
is convicted of an offence under this Act, the Government may direct the
suspension or resumption of the whole or any part of such grant.

c. Collective Fines (Section 10-A)

Section 10A empowers the government to impose collective fine upon the
inhabitants of an area in case the State Government is satisfied that they are
collectively involved in the commission of or abetment of an offence punishable
under this section or harbouring a person connected in the commission of such
offence. On being satisfied to any of the above said facts, the State Government

16
 may impose a collective fine on all inhabitants and apportion such fine amongst
the inhabitants who are liable collectively to pay it.

d. Enhanced Penalty (Section 11)

Whoever having already been convicted of an offence under this Act or of an
abetment of such offence is again convicted of any such offence or abetment,
shall on conviction, be punishable:
(a) for the second offence, with imprisonment for a term of not less than six
months and not more than an one year, and also with fine which shall be not less
than two hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees;
(b) for the third offence or any offence subsequent to the third offence, with
imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than two years,
and also with fine which shall be not less than five hundred rupees and not more
than one thousand rupees.

6.4. PRESUMPTION BY THE COURT

Section 12 makes a special provision under the Act and it has brought about a change
in the judicial jurisprudence, i.e., normally the burden is always on the prosecution to
bring home the guilty of the accused but section 12 of the Act had made an exception and
said that when an allegation is made by a member of Scheduled Castes then the court will
presume unless the contrary is proved that the offence of untochability was committed by
the accused. However, presumption under section 12 is not final and it can be rebutted by
the accused. The burden can be discharged by him by showing preponderance of
probability in favour of the plea taken by him.

Shanmugha Sundaram Pillai v. State (1982)- The constitutional validity of Section

12 was challenged as being violative of article 14 of the Constitution. However the Court
upheld the constitutional validity of Section 12. The court held that the shift of burden of
proof on defence is necessary to secure prosecution. Further this provision supplements
the social welfare characteristics of the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955.

6.5. SHORTCOMINGS OF THE ACT

17
 a. The term ‘untouchability’ cannot be confined to ‘Schedule Castes’ only and the
Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 should have broader application. Though
schedule castes are the main benificiaries of the Act due to the fact that they are
the castes which are historically considered untouchables, but there may be
other castes also who are not within the legal definition of Schedule Castes as
given under article 366(24) of the Constitution, but against whom
untouchability might still be practised.

b. Further it is the President of India who, under article 341, specifies any caste as
a Schedule Caste in relation to a particular State or Union Territory. Now there
may be a situation where a caste is notified as a Schedule Caste in one state but
not in other state. The case of Charles Raj v. State of Maharashtra 17 is an
example of this situation. The complainant was a member of schedule caste as
notified in the State of Tamil Nadu, but not so notified in the State of
Maharashtra. He filed a case under the Act against ill-treatment on grounds of
untouchability. The Court held, while referring to article 341 of the
Constitution, which says that a caste would be deemed to be a Schedule Caste
only in relation to that State as notified in the list. In this case, the caste of the
complainant was not notified in the State of Maharashtra, so he cannot avail the
protection of the Act.
c. The Act has been ineffective where the Courts deny relief on technical grounds,
example, non-mentioning of the caste name in the FIR. Now due to lack of
awareness about such procedural requirements, the non-mentioning of the caste
name in the FIR results in dismissal of the case without any fault of the victim.
So it should be the duty of the police to inform the complainant about the
procedural requirements as to the filing of the FIR.

Salient features of the protection of the Civil Rights Act

 The Amendment Act has tightened the provisions to remove untouchability. All

untouchability offenses which were considered within the jurisdiction of the court

17
MANU/MH/0859/2004.

18
 will now be treated as non-compoundable offences and if the punishment does not
exceed three months imprisonment can be tried instantly.
 The punishment for the untouchability offenses has been enhanced to a fine as well
as imprisonment and for further default, the punishment will be extended. For the
third and subsequent offenses, the punishment may increase from one-year
imprisonment with a fine of Rupees 500 to two years of imprisonment with the
fine of Rupees 1000.
 To any form of punishment, courts have the power to cancel or suspend the
licenses of any profession, trade, employment, in terms of which the offense has
been committed for as much as the time they seem fit.
 One of the important characteristics of this Act is that public servants who
willfully show negligence in the investigation of any offense will be punishable
under this Act. The Act shows surveys and studies for determining the areas where
untouchability is practised, setting up committees for implementing the Act.
 The places of worship along with the lands and apartments which are privately
owned are allowed by the owners to be used as places of public worship.
 The direct and indirect preaching of untouchability and its justification has been
made a ground to commit an offense.
 Forcing any person to do sweeping has also been made punishable.
 The State Governments have been given the power to impose fines locally of any
area who are worried and help the commission to commit untouchability offences.
 One of the features is also that the Central Government will coordinate with the
State Government for the implementation of the provisions of the Act.
 The Government of India has also asked the State Governments to provide
statistical and other information about the number of cases dealt by them under
this Act along with the detailed information regarding the steps taken by them for
the proper implementation of the provision of the Act.

7. SCHEDULED CASTE & SCHEDULE TRIBE

(PREVENTION OF ATRICITIES) ACT 1989

19
 The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is an Act of the
Parliament of India enacted to prevent atrocities against scheduled castes and scheduled
tribes. The normal provisions of the existing laws like, the Protection of Civil Rights Act
1955 and Indian Penal Code have been found inadequate to check these atrocities continuing
the gross indignities and offences against Scheduled Castes and Tribes. Recognizing these,
the Parliament passed ‘Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act’,
1989 & Rules, 1995. The preamble of the Act states that the Act is

“to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of Scheduled
Castes and Tribes, to provide for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for
the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offenses and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.”

Thus objectives of the Act clearly emphasize the intention of the Government to
deliver justice to these communities through proactive efforts to enable them to live in society
with dignity and self-esteem and without fear or violence or suppression from the dominant
castes. The practice of untouchability, in its overt and covert form was made a cognizable and
non compoundable offence, and strict punishment is provided for any such offence.

The SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with stringent provisions (which
extends to whole of India except the State of Jammu & Kasmhir) was enacted on 9
September 1989. Section 23(1) of the Act authorises the Central Government to frame rules
for carrying out the purpose of the Act. Drawing power from this section, the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules of 1995 were framed.

7.1. APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT

So far as the application of the Act is concerned, this Act will apply only in cases where
the offence is committed by non-SCs and non-STs on members of the SC or ST communities.
Crimes among SCs and STs or between STs and SCs do not come under the purview of this
Act. In Kanubhai M. Parmar v. State of Gujarat, it was held that if the offence is committed
by persons belonging to Scheduled Caste against Scheduled Caste member, they cannot be
prosecuted and punished under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.

7.2. SUPREME COURT RULING: National Campaign on Dalit Human

Rights v. Union of India (2015)

20
 The Supreme Court judgement had come on a petition filed by an NGO called National
Campaign on Dalit Human Rights. The petition was that government had aggrieved the SCs
and STs by non-implementation of the provisions of the act and sought directions from court
to government {note that the writ here is of mandamus nature}  for setting up special officers,
nodal officers and protection cell as required under the Act. Key points from the court’s
observations and judgements are as follows:
a. The indifferent attitude of the authorities concerned with the implementation of the
act has prevented from achieving the laudable object of the law.
b. Court directed the central and state governments to strictly enforce the provisions of
the act.
c. The court also directed the national commissions (of SCs and STs) to discharge their
duties to protect the SCs and STs.
d. The court requested the National Legal Services Authority to formulate appropriate
schemes to spread awareness and provide free legal aid to members of SCs and STs.

7.3. DEFINITION OF ATROCITY UNDER THE ACT (Section- 2(a) &

Section-3)
The term ‘atrocity’ is defined under section 2(a) of the Act. In legal parlance, the act
understands the term to mean any offence that is punishable under section 3(1) and section
3(2). Section 3 provides punishment for offences of atrocities. Section 3 is a very detailed
provision, under which certain new offences were added after the 2016 amendment. It
provides a punishment of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but
which may extend to five years and with fine. The provision under the amended section 3(1)
could be broadly classified into the following heads:
a. Personal Atrocities
1. Putting any inedible and obnoxious matter into the mouth of a member of
SC/ST community or forcing such member to drink or eat such substance.
[Section 3(1) (a)]
2. Dumping excreta, sewage, carcass or any obnoxious matter in premises
occupied by a member of SC/ST community or his neighbourhood. [Section 3
(1) (b) & (c)]
3. Putting footwear garlands, naked or semi-naked parading of a SC/ST. [Section
3(1) (d)]

21
 4. Forcibly removing clothes, tonsuring of head, removing moustache, face
painting or any other act which is derogatory to human dignity. [Section 3(1)
(e)]

b. Property related Atrocities

1. Wrongfully occupying or cultivating land owned or possessed by a ST/SC
member. [Section 3(1) (f)]
2. Wrongfully dispossessing a member of ST/SC from his land or premises or
interfering with his enjoyment of rights, including forest rights or irrigation
facilities or destroying the crop or taking away the produce. [Section 3(1) (g)]
3. Forcing a SC/ST member to leave his house, village or other place of
residence. [Section 3(1) (z)]

In Kashiben Chhaganbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat a member of Scheduled Caste was

dispossessed from his land by upper caste member. The accused forcibly entered upon land
and damaged crops. Eye-witness supported the claim cases of the complainant and the
accused was convicted under section 3(1) (v) as well as for cheating and damaging crops.

c. Social Atrocities
1. Making a member of SC/ST to do beggar or other forms of forced or bonded
labour. [Section 3(1) (h)]
2. Compelling a member of SC/ST to carry or dispose animal or human carcass
or to dig graves. [Section 3(1) (i)]
3. Making a member of SC/ST community to do manual scavenging. [Section
3(1) (j)]
4. Abusing any member of SC/ST by caste name in any place within public view.
[Section 3(1) (s)]

In Kaliya Peru Mal v. State of Madras, it was held that the specific averments made
in the complaint showed that the accused abused the complainant by her caste name, in filthy
language, thereby causing insult and intimidation to her. The court held that all this amounted
to an offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.

22
 In State of Kerala v. U.P. Hassan, the accused called the complainant by term
“Pulaya Nadi”. The word ‘Pulayadimon’ in Malayalam indicates meaning ‘adulterer’ or ‘son
of a prostitute’. The court held that this term did not have any caste implication and since
accused had no motive to insult the complaint by his caste name, no offence under Section 3
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was
committed by the accused.

The facts of Shayam Singh alias Dhannu and Another v. State of M.P. is almost similar
to the facts narrated as above. The accused allegedly called the complainant by caste name
(Chamar in this case). The court held that there was no offence because taking the name of
caste of any citizen of this country itself is not the offence till it is not taken with the intention
to humiliate that person because of his community.

d. Atrocities against Women (inserted by 2016 amendment)

1. Promoting SC/ST women to a deity or idol as a devdasi. [Section 3(1) (k)]
2. Intentionally touching a SC/ST woman in a sexual manner without her consent
or using words or acts of sexual nature. [Section 3(1) (w)]

In Karan Singh v. State of Haryana, complainant and her companion were molested
as they were women. The court held that as such women were not molested because of the
fact that they belonged to Scheduled Caste, hence, accused could not be prosecuted for
atrocities on Scheduled Caste woman under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

Ashok Bapurao Thorat v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., in this case, allegation against
the accused that he had sexual intercourse with complainant belonging to the scheduled caste.
The contents of FIR showing that the complainant was consenting party and there was love
affair between them. The court held that complainant was not subjected to consummation
because she was scheduled caste woman. The accused is not liable for punishment under
section 3(1).

e. Political Atrocities
1. Forcing, intimidating or preventing a member of SC/ST to vote or not to vote a
particular candidate or not to file nomination. [Section 3(1) (l)]

23
 2. Forcing, intimidating or obstructing a member of SC/ST who is a member of
office of Panchayat or Municipality from performing their duties. [Section 3(1)
(m)]
3. Causing hurt or grevious hurt or imposing social or economic boycott upon a
member of SC/ST for availing benefits of any public service. [Section 3(1) (n)]
4. Committing any offence under this Act against a member of SC/ST for voting or
not voting for a particular candidate. [Section 3(1) (o)]

Section 3(2) consists of aggravated forms of offences, such as giving or fabricating

false evidence, committing mischief by fire or any explosive substance, committing any
offence under the IPC punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more etc. A
significant amendment was made in the provision of section 3(2)(v) in the year 2016. The un-
amended section 3(2)(v) provided as:

“(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe

(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with
imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the
ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or
such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life
and with fine.”

In the above provision, the underlined expression, ‘on the ground that’ has been
substituted by the expression ‘knowing that’ (by the 2016 amendment). Prior to the 2016
amendment, the Act laid stress on the ‘intention of the accused’ in committing the offence.
This lowered down the importance of the SC/ST person. As ‘intention’ is difficult to
establish, it ultimately led to acquittal of the accused person.

The Supreme Court, in Ashrafi v. State of UP (2016), observed that after the 2016
amendment, it is not necessary to establish the ‘intention’ of the accused person to secure his
conviction. Mere ‘knowledge’ that the person against whom the offence is committed
belongs to SC/ST community is sufficient to attract charges under section 3(2)(v) of the Act.
In this case, the Supreme Court was considering an appeal filed by a man convicted both by
the trial court and High Court in a rape case. Since the victim belonged to SC/ST community,
the accused was convicted under section 3(2)(v) of the Act and was sentenced to undergo life

24
imprisonment and fine. In the present case, the un-amended section will apply because the
offence was committed in the year 1995.

Thus the ‘specific intention’ of the accused to commit offence of rape on a woman
‘because she belonged to SC/ST community’ has to be taken into consideration. The evidence
and material-on-record did not show that the appellant had committed rape on the victim on
ground that she belonged to SC/ST community. Hence in absence of any evidence proving
the intention of appellant, the sentence imposed under section 3(2)(v) was set aside. However
he was convicted for committing rape under section 376 of IPC.

7.4. OTHER IMPORTANT AMENDMENTS

a. Amendment in Section-4
The un-amended provision provided as:

“4. Punishment for neglect of duties

Whoever, being a public servant but not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe, willfully neglects his duties required to be performed by him under this Act, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term shall not be than six months but which may extend
to one year.”

After the amendment, clause (2) has been inserted in the above provision, specifying what all
duties are required to be performed by the public servant under the act. It provides as:

(2) The duties of public servant shall include-

a. To read out to an informant, the information which is orally given and reduced in
writing by the police officer, before taking signature of the informant
b. To register a complaint or FIR under relevant sections of the Act
c. To furnish copy of information so recorded to the informant
d. To record statements of victim and witnesses
e. To conduct investigation and file charge sheet within a period of 60 days
f. To correctly prepare, frame or translate any document or electronic record
g. To perform any other duty specified under the Act.

25
 b. Amendment in Section-8
The un-amended provision provided as:

“8. Presumption as to offences

In a prosecution for an offence under this Chapter, if it is proved that-

(a) the accused rendered any financial assistance in relation to the offences committed by a
person accused of, or reasonably suspected of committing, an offence under this Chapter, the
Special Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that such person had abetted the
offence;

(b) a group of persons committed an offend under this Chapter and if it is proved that the
offence committed was a sequel to any existing dispute regarding land or any other matter, it
shall be presumed that the offence was committed in furtherance of the common intention or
in prosecution of the common object.”

After the 2016 amendment, 3rd clause has been inserted in the above provision, which states
that:
“(c) If the accused was having the personal knowledge of the victim or his family, the Court
shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim.”

c. Amendment in Section-14

Under the un-amended provision the Court of Session was designated as a Special Court
to try the offences under this Act. However after the amendment, for the purpose of providing
speedy trial, the State government shall establish an ‘Exclusive Special Court’ for one or
more districts. Further, in districts where less number of cases is recorded, the State
government shall specify the Court of Session to be ‘Special Court’ to try offences under the
Act.

d. Insertion of Section 14-A

26
 After section 14, a new provision i.e. section 14-A has been inserted, which deals with the
appeal against the order of ‘Exclusive Special Court’ and ‘Special Court’. It provides that any
appeal against the order of the aforementioned courts will lie to the High Court. The section
also provides that every appeal under this section must be preferred within a period of 90
days from the date of judgment. However the High Court may entertain appeal after the
expiry of 90 days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the
appeal within 90 days. Every appeal under this section is required to be disposed off within a
period of 3 months.

e. Insertion of Section 15-A

A new chapter IV-A was introduced in the Act providing for the ‘Rights of Victims and
Witnesses’. This chapter consisting of Section 15-A provides the following rights to the
victims and witnessed under the Act:
a. Rights against any kind of intimidation, coercion, inducement or threat
b. Right to be treated with fairness, respect and dignity with due regard to the victim’s
age, gender, educational disadvantage and poverty
c. Right to have reasonable, accurate and timely notice of any court proceeding
d. Right to summon parties for production of any document, material or witness
e. Right to be heard in respect of bail, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an
accused
f. Right of the atrocity victims and their dependents to take assistance from NGOs,
social workers and advocates.

f. Compensation amount enhanced

The amended the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Rules now specifies as many as 47 categories of offences in which states will pay
compensation ranging from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 8.25 lakh to SC/ST victims. The rules last
amended in 2011 had provisions for only 22 kinds of offences with minimum compensation
ranging from Rs 60,000 to Rs 5 lakh. The enhanced amounts now must be paid by the state
within 7 days of the incident being reported, either in full or at various stages of the
investigation and trial, as per the schedule.

27
 The new Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment
Rules, 2016, notified by government, include the words rape and gang rape specifically in the
definition of atrocities against SC/ST women to enable them to get relief under the Act. The
new rules have come in the wake of amendment made in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by Parliament in 2016. The new rules also make
provision of increased relief to victims ranging from Rs 85,000 to Rs 8.25 lakh now, against
the earlier amount ranging from Rs 75,000 to Rs 7.5 lakh.

The new rules also mandate that investigation and filing of charge sheet in cases of
atrocities against SC/ST women will now have to be completed within 60 days of committing
the offence. Earlier, there was no such time limit for filing of charge sheet, but the
investigations in cases were earlier mandated to be completed within a 30 day period.

7.5. FEW IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

a. Provision for ‘Externment’(Chapter III, Section 10-13)

Externment is basically a process whereby a criminal is kept away from a particular area
so that he does not create trouble in that area. Chapter III provides provision with respect to
externment. Section 10 provides that where the Special Court is satisfied that a person is
likely to commit an offence in any area, it may direct such person to remove himself beyond
the limits of such area and not to return to that area from which he was directed to remove
himself for such period, not exceeding two years. The Court shall also communicate the
grounds on which such order has been made. The person against whom such order has been
made may make a representation against the order within thirty days from the date of the
order. Section 13 makes provision for penalty for non-compliance of order under section 10.
Any person contravening an order of the Special Court made under section 10 shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and with fine.

b. Collective Fines (Section 16)

Section 16 gives power to the State Government to impose collective fine. The provisions
of this section is same as that of section 10A of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955,
which provides that the government can impose collective fine upon the inhabitants of an

28
area in case the State Government is satisfied that they are collectively involved in the
commission of or abetment of an offence punishable under this Act or harbouring a person
connected in the commission of such offence. On being satisfied to any of the above said
facts, the State Government may impose a collective fine on all inhabitants and apportion
such fine amongst the inhabitants who are liable collectively to pay it.

c. Provision with regard to anticipatory bail (Section 18)

Section 18 provides that nothing in section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall
apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having
committed an offence under this Act. Section 438 of CrPC has provision relating to
anticipatory bail. According to it, an individual can seek or request to get bail in anticipation
or in expectation of being named or accused of having committed a non-bailable offence.
One can avail the provisions of s. 438 by filing an application for the same in the High Court
or Sessions Court. If an application in the Sessions Court is rejected, the person may file the
same in the High Court, but not vice versa.

The constitutional validity of section 18 was challenged in the case of State of M.P. and
others v. Ram Krishna Balodia18. The Court upheld the validity of the provision and
observed that offences under the Act form distinct class by themselves and cannot be
compared with other offences. The court held:

"There is every likelihood that the persons committing offences under Section 3 of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 might use their liberty while on anticipatory bail to
terrorize their victims and to prevent a proper investigation. Hence Section 18 of the Act
denying application of Section 438 Cr. PC to these offences is not violative of Article 21 of
the Constitution."

7.6. RECENT DIRECTIVES ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court taking note of the frivolous complaints made under the Act laid down
guidelines in order to prevent the abuse of the Act. The judgment was passed on 20 th March
2018-Dr. Shubhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & anr.:

Following directions were issued to prevent the misuse of the Act -

18
AIR 1998 SC 1198.

29
 a. There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Act, if no
prima facie case is made out, or where the complaint is found to be malafide.
b. There cannot be any immediate arrest of a public servant. Arrest of a public servant
can only be made after approval of the appointing authority of that public servant. In
case of a non-public servant, arrest can be made after the approval of Senior
Superintendent of Police of the District.
c. To avoid any false implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry may be
conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned, to find the veracity of
the allegations
d. Any violation of the directives will be actionable by way of disciplinary action.

These directives are basically to protect the honest public servants discharging bonafide
duties from being blackmailed with false cases under the Act. As a result of these directives
issued by the Supreme Court, there was a huge uproar in the Dalit community. They infact
called out a nationwide bandh. A number of people even lost their lives in this protest. The
government was pressurised to take some concrete action in the matter. Because of the fact
that 2019 Lok Sabha elections are approaching, the protestors even gained support from the
political parties.

As a result of all these, the Centre filed a review petition before the Supreme Court. It
was contended that such directives will defeat the object of the law and would dilute its
provisions. It would further reduce the deterrent factor and make the weaker section more
vulnerable.

However, even in the review petition, the Supreme Court stayed by its verdict and
observed that the judgment implements what is said in the Constitution. It reflects the
constitutional aspirations. The Court is very much conscious of the rights of the
underprivileged and places them at the highest pedestal but at the same time, an innocent
person cannot be falsely implicated and arrested without proper verification. The judgement
tries to strike a ‘balance’ between Dalit rights and right of an innocent against arrest in a false
case.

Analysis of the judgment

30
 This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has come up with directives to
prevent misuse of any law. Prior to this, even in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
(2014), the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to prevent abuse of Section 498-A
of I.P.C, whereby, the Court categorically held that such misuse of legal provision may
unleash a new kind of ‘legal terrorism’. So it is the duty of the court to prevent such misuse
by coming up with such directives.

Further, one of the directives provides for preliminary inquiry before arrest, i.e. there
won’t be any automatic arrest. Now this is nothing new. Section 41-A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure already provides that no policeman may automatically arrest an accused
where the prescribed punishment is less than 7 years. Thus this Act, being a substantive law,
has to abide by the procedures given under CrPC which is a procedural law.

THE SALIENT FEATURES OF THE ACT ARE,

1. Creation of new types of offences not in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or in the
Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 (PCRA).
2. Commission of offences only by specified persons i.e. barbarity can be committed
only by non-SCs and non-STs on members of the SC or ST communities. Crimes
among SCs and STs or between STs and SCs do not come under the purview of
this Act. Kanubhai M. Parmar v. State of Gujarat, that if the offence is committed
by persons belonging to Scheduled Caste against Scheduled Caste member, they
cannot be prosecuted and punished under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
3. Defines various types of atrocities against SCs/STs. Section 3(1) i to xv and 3(2) i
to vii.
4. Prescribes strict punishment for such atrocities (Section 3(1)i to xv and 3(2)i to
vii).
5. Enhanced the quality of punishment for some offences (Section 3(2) i to vii, 5).
6. Enhanced minimum punishment for public servants (Section 3(2) vii).
7. Penalty for delinquency of duties by a public servant (Section 4).
8. Attachment and forfeiture of property (Section 7).
9. Externment of potential offenders (Section 10(1), 10(3), 10(3)).

31
 10. Creation of Special Courts(Section 14). In Mangal Prasad v. Additional Session
Judge the court held that the Court below has been appointed as a special Judge
within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act but unless the accused is sent to him
by the Magistrate, he cannot take any cognizance of the offence under Section 14
of the said Act and he also cannot act as a Magistrate in exercising his power or in
taking the cognizance of the Act like a Magistrate or to send that complaint
petition to the concerned police station under Section 156 (3), Criminal Procedure
11. Appointment of Special Public Prosecutors (Section 15).
12. Empowers the government to impose collective fines (Section 16).
13. Erasure of arms licenses in the areas labeled where an atrocity may take place or
has taken place (Rule 3iii) and clasp all illegal fire arms (Rule 3iv).
14. Grant arms licenses to SCs and STs (Rule 3v).
15. Denial of anticipatory bail (Section 18).
16. Denial of probation to convict (Section 19).
17. Provides reimbursement, relief, and rehabilitation for victims of atrocities or their
legal heirs (Section 17(3), 21(2)iii, Rule 11, 12(4)).
18. Identification of atrocity prone areas(Section 17(1), 21(2)vii, Rule 3(1)).
19. Setting up hindrance to avoid committing of atrocities on the SCs amongst others
(Rule 3i to 3xi).
20. Setting up a mandatory, periodic monitoring system at different levels (Section
21(2)v):

 District level (Rule 3xi, 4(2), 4(4), 17).

 State level (8xi, 14, 16, 18).
 National level (Section 21(2), 21(3), 21(4)).

Along with the rules, it provides a framework for monitoring the state response to the
atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. According to the Act and Rules,
there are to be monthly reports (from the District Magistrates), quarterly review meetings at
the district level by the District Monitoring and Vigilance Committee (DVMC) and half
yearly reviews by a 25-member State Monitoring and Vigilance Committee (SVMC) the
chaired by the Chief Minister. The pursuance of every Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) will
also have to be reviewed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) every quarter. Annual
reports have to be sent to the central government by 31 March every year.

32
33