Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (its correct name) is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted to prevent atrocities and hate crimes against scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The Act is popularly known as the SC/ST Act, POA, the Prevention of Atrocities Act, or simply the Atrocities Act. It was enacted when the existing provisions (such as the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 and Indian Penal Code) were found to be inadequate to check these crimes (defined as 'atrocities' in  the Act). Recognising the continuing gross indignities and offences against Scheduled Castes and Tribes, the Parliament passed the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The Act was passed in Parliament of India on 11 September 1989 and notified on 30 January 1990. It was comprehensively amended in 2015, and notified on 26 January 2016. The rules for the Act were notified on 31 March 1995, and the amended rules were notified on 14 April 2016. A number of cases of misuse of this Act has been reported from different parts of the country as mentioned  in the Supreme Court verdict of 20 March 2018. In this verdict, the Supreme Court of India banned immediate arrest of a person accused of insulting or injuring a member of a scheduled community to prevent arbitrary arrest. In August 2018, the parliament of India passed an amendment to override the ruling (with effect from 20 August 2018) by inserting section 18A(1)(a) "'preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of an FIR against any person" and section 18A(1)(b), "the investigating officer shall not require approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any person against whom an accusation of having  committed an offence under this Act has been made and no procedure, other than that provided under this Act or the Code, shall apply". The amendments categorically rule out anticipatory bail for a person accused of atrocities against the scheduled communities, notwithstanding any court order. Background. The post-Independence era was marked by frequent instances of atrocities springing up across the country: for example, the assassination of the young, educated Dalit leader Emmanuel Sekaran in Tamil Nadu for defying the untouchability-based interdicts on Scheduled Castes (SCs, also called Dalits), which resulted in the Ramanathapuram riots of 1957; the Kilavenmani  massacre of 42 Dalits in 1968 in Tamil Nadu; the gruesome killing of Dalit Kotesu in Kanchikacherla in 1969 in Andhra Pradesh; the killings of 10 Scheduled Tribes (STs, also called Adivasis, literally 'first dweller') by police in connection with a land dispute in Indravalli in Andhra Pradesh in 1978. All such events shook the then national leadership. Hence, under pressure from Dalit MPs, the Government of India started monitoring atrocities against Dalits from 1974, and in the case of Adivasis from 1981 onwards, with special focus on murder, rape, arson and grievous hurt. Atrocities continued to increase in ferocity  and frequency – for example, in Bihar the massacres of Dalits at Belchi in 1979 and at Pipra in 1980; in Uttar Pradesh the massacre following a Dalit bridegroom riding on horseback at Kafalta in 1980; in Madhya Pradesh the killing of Bacchdas in Mandsaur district in 1982; in Bihar the killing in police firing on 15 tribals at Banjhi in Sahebganj district in 1985. In all such cases, the Indian state at both the national and state levels avoided addressing basic contradictions, vulnerabilities and causative factors; the treatment was mainly symptomatic and palliative instead of the required radical solutions. Under  continued pressure from Dalit MPs and political leaders, the magnitude and gravity of the problem was finally recognised by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. In his Independence Address on 15 August 1987, he announced that an Act would be passed, if necessary, to check atrocities. Necessity. Atrocities rooted in caste system. A study conducted by the National Commission for SCs and STs in 1990 on "Atrocities on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes: Causes and Remedies" pointed out various causal factors for atrocities: land disputes; land alienation; bonded labour; indebtedness; non-payment of minimum wages; caste prejudice and practice of untouchability; political  factions on caste lines; refusal to perform traditional works such as digging burial pits, arranging cremations, removing carcasses of dead animals and beating drums; etc. The deep root for such atrocities is traceable to the caste system, which "encompasses a complete ordering of social groups on the basis of the so-called ritual purity. A person is considered a member of the caste into which s/he is born and remains within that caste until death…." Considered ritually impure, Dalits have been physically and socially excluded from mainstream society, denied basic resources and services, and discriminated against in all areas  of life. Accordingly, they face various forms of exploitation, insults and violence, as well as degrading practices of untouchability. The Scheduled Tribes were equally exploited on grounds of not falling within the caste system but having a distinct culture and worldview of their own. "Women belonging to these castes and tribes bore double burden. They were exploited by caste and gender, and were vulnerable and powerless against sexual exploitation". Continuing widespread prevalence. Despite the right to non-discrimination on the basis of race or caste enshrined in Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, discrimination against SCs and STs is pervasive . Though abolished and forbidden by Article 17, the practice of 'untouchability' persists due to its systemic character. Hence, the Indian Parliament enacted the Untouchability Offences Act 1955, which underwent amendment and renaming in 1976 to become the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act. Under this Act, 'untouchability' as a result of religious and social disabilities was made punishable. However, due to legal loopholes, the levels of punishments being less punitive as compared to those of the IPC, and the law and order machinery being neither professionally trained nor socially inclined to implement such social legislation, a more comprehensive and more  punitive Act was required to protect SCs and STs from violence committed by other communities. This gave rise to the SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989. As late as October 2021, the Supreme Court of India was constrained to observe that '“"Atrocities against members of the SCs and STs are not a thing of the past. They continue to be a reality in our society even today. Hence the statutory provisions which have been enacted by Parliament as a measure of protecting the constitutional rights of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes must be complied with and enforced  conscientiously"'. (Justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna). They went on to note that several members of the scheduled communities “"face insurmountable hurdles in accessing justice from the stage of filing the complaint to the conclusion of the trial” and that they “specifically suffer on account of procedural lapses in the criminal justice system"”. They noted that due to the fear of retribution from members of upper caste groups, ignorance, or police apathy, many victims do not register complaints in the first place and when they do so, the police officials are reluctant to register complaints or do not record  allegations accurately. “"Eventually, if the case does get registered, the victims and witnesses are vulnerable to intimidation, violence, and social and economic boycott. Further, many perpetrators of caste-based atrocities get away scot free due to shoddy investigations and the negligence of prosecuting advocates,” rued the bench. “This results in low conviction rates under the SC/ST Act, giving rise to the erroneous perception that cases registered under the Act are false and that it is being misused. On the contrary, the reality is that many acquittals are a result of improper investigation and prosecution of crime, leading to insufficient  evidence"”. Objectives. The basic objective and purpose of this more comprehensive and more punitive piece of legislation was sharply enunciated when the Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha: Despite various measures to improve the socio-economic conditions of the SCs and STs, they remain vulnerable... They have in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property... Because of the awareness created... through spread of education, etc., when they assert their rights and resist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutory minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the vested interests try to  cow them down and terrorise them. When the SCs and STs try to preserve their self-respect or honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty... Under the circumstances, the existing laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 and the normal provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to check and deter crimes against them committed by non-SCs and non-STs... It is considered necessary that not only the term 'atrocity' should be defined, but also stringent measures should be introduced to provide for higher punishment for  committing such atrocities. It is also proposed to enjoin on the States and Union Territories to take specific preventive and punitive measures to protect SCs and STs from being victimized and, where atrocities are committed, to provide adequate relief and assistance to rehabilitate them. The objectives of the Act, therefore, very clearly emphasise the intention of the Indian state to deliver justice to SC/ST communities through affirmative action in order to enable them to live in society with dignity and self-esteem and without fear, violence or suppression from the dominant castes. The Supreme Court of India too reiterated  the significance and importance of the Act: Salient features. The provisions of SC/ST Act and Rules can be divided into three different categories, covering a variety of issues related to atrocities against SC/ST people and their position in society. The salient features of the Act are Together 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 performance 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. The Act and Rules are a potent mechanism and precision instruments that can be used in tandem with the Right To Information (RTI) Act 2005 to motivate the state to hold the mandatory meetings and enforce compliance. A Human Rights Defenders  Monitoring Calendar has been developed from the Act and rules to help human rights defenders, and others to clarify the functions and duties of the monitoring authorities (the SVMC and DVMC). Section::::'Atrocity'. The term 'atrocity' was not defined until this Act was passed by the Parliament in 1989. In legal parlance, the Act understands the term to mean an offence punishable under sections 3(1) and 3(2). In specific terms: The Act lists 22 offences relating to various patterns of behaviours inflicting criminal offences for shattering the self-respect and esteem of SCs and STs, denial of economic, democratic and social  rights, discrimination, exploitation and abuse of the legal process, etc. Section 3 of the Act lists the criminal offences and the punishments. It contains: These protections can be broadly divided into protection from The common denominator of the offences is that criminal liability can only be established if the offence is committed by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe against a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. Special Courts. For speedy trial, Section 14 of the Act provides for a Court of Session to be a  Special Court to try offences under this Act in each district. Rule 13(i) mandates that the judge in a special court be sensitive with right aptitude and understanding of the problems of the SCs and STs. However, that is seldom the case. Most states have declared a court as a 'special court'. The hitch is that they are designated courts (as opposed to exclusive special courts) and so have to hear many other cases too. Consequently, at any time about 80% of the cases are pending—defeating the very purpose of having special courts in the first place. Special Court  Justice Ramaswamy observed in the case of State of Karnataka v. Ingale that more than seventy-five percent of the cases brought under the SC/ST Act end in acquittal at all levels. The situation has not improved much since 1992 according to the figures given by the 2002 Annual Report dealing with SC/ST Act (of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment) Of the total cases filed in 2002 only 21.72% were disposed of, and, of those, a mere 2.31% ended in conviction. The number of acquittals is 6 times more than the number of convictions and more  than 70 percent of the cases are still pending. Inaugurating a two-day annual conference of State Ministers of Welfare/Social Justice, 8 Sept 2009, Prime Minister Singh expressed 'shock' that the conviction rate of cases of atrocities against the SC/STs is less than 30% against the average of 42% for all cognisable offences under the Indian Penal Code. And in rape cases the conviction rate is just 2%. Karnataka has only eight Special courts, though 15 of 30 districts are declared 'atrocity prone'. Overall conviction rates remain at or below 5%. Even the few special courts seem to  be biased. In 2010, of the 101 cases disposed of in the Tumkur special court, not one was convicted. Gulbarga, another atrocity prone district had a conviction rate of just 2%. 7 districts had a conviction rate of 0% in 2010. Investigation. According to Rule 7(1) investigation of an offence committed under the SC/ST Act cannot be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). Various High Courts have set aside cases based on the above rule. The rule is to ensure that the investigations are of high quality, and the assumption  is that senior officials would not be as biased, nor as vulnerable to other pressures, as those in the lower rungs of the police force. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in "D. Ramlinga Reddy v. State of AP", took the position that provisions of Rule 7 are mandatory and held that investigation under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has to be carried out by only an officer not below the rank of DSP. An investigation carried out and charge sheet filed by an incompetent officer is more than likely to be quashed. Similarly, the Madras High Court in  M. Kathiresam v. State of Tamil Nadu held that investigation conducted by an officer other than a DSP is improper and bad in law and proceedings based on such an investigation are required to be quashed. The Courts without taking into consideration the inadequacies of the State, have been punishing SC/STs (the victims) for the same. Shri Pravin Rashtrapal, Member of Parliament rightly pointed out that there are insufficient officers at that level. His statement is supported by the Annual Report of 2005-2006 of Ministry of Home Affairs. Of the total posts sanctioned by the government under Indian  Police Service (IPS) more than 15 percent of the posts are vacant. This basically means that there is one IPS officer for 77,000 SC/STs. In the case of Karnataka, there were no officers of the required rank in three districts, as admitted by the government at the State Vigilance and Monitoring Committee (SVMC) in September 2010. Though officers of higher rank can conduct the investigation (the Act only says 'at least of rank'), in practice they seldom do. Relief and socio-economic rehabilitation. Atrocities often take place when persons belonging to the SC/ST community do not fulfill their  'caste functions' by doing ritually prescribed 'unclean' work or break the caste boundaries such as sitting in the bus or wearing a turban—often the preserve of the dominant castes. Atrocities are often a form of 'collective' punishment for daring to have even some semblance of non-dependence which is termed as 'prosperous', and the atrocity is to bring them back into the situation of total dependence and servitude. The state therefore has the duty to help the community back on its feet. The government has prescribed a schedule for relief and socio-economic rehabilitation under Rule 12.(4)) as Annexure  1 entitled Norms for Relief Amount. This is periodically updated. Record. As 'police' and 'public order' are state subjects, primary responsibility for prevention of atrocities and maintenance of law and order rests with the State Governments. A responsive police administration has always been recognized as an essential requirement in any society that seeks to take care of its citizens. Such responsive administration is essential for prevention of atrocities likely to be inflicted upon SCs and STs by unscrupulous non-SC/ST elements. Section 21(1) and (2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 stipulate that the State Government shall take all  such measures as may be necessary for its effective implementation. However, despite the Act and Rules, the situation has not changed much. The incidence of atrocities is actually increasing, and the implementation of the law leaves much to be desired as this statement of the Union Minister for Home Affairs shows: "Madam, I must concede that the statistics do not reflect any decline in the atrocities. On the contrary, the information compiled by the Crime Records Bureau shows that the number of cases registered of atrocities against the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is, in fact, on the rise . I have the numbers from 2006 to 2008, subsequent years are being compiled. Take for example the case of the Scheduled Castes. The number of cases of atrocities against the Scheduled Castes registered in 2006 was 26,665. That itself is an understatement. Many of the cases are simply not registered. In 2007, it was 29,825 and in 2008 it was 33,365. So, this clearly shows the rise in trend. I can make one or two deductions from this. We cannot be happy about the fact that approximately 33,000 cases are being registered as atrocities against Scheduled Castes in one  year. What makes it even more disturbing is that while so many cases are registered, the conviction rate hovers around 30%. What makes it doubly painful is that there is rise in atrocities, but when you try to prosecute and convict, the conviction rate is only 30%. It was 28%, 31.4% and 32%. Not only are acquittals very high; pendency is about 80%. I am afraid that the disposal of the cases is low; the rate of conviction is low. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that the feeling amongst the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes that all these  laws and all these statements, all these pronouncements have really not brought any relief to them. That feeling is running high and I cannot but say that feeling is justified." (p143,144 of the printed text). 23 States have set up SC/ST Protection Cells. Nodal Officers have been appointed in 28 States. Though the Act and rules are stringent, it is not a deterrent, as the Minister for Home Affairs P Chidambaram admitted in the Lok Sabha, referring to the Central Committee monitoring the implementation of the Act: A committee under the Chairmanship of the Minister of Social Justice  was set up after the SCs and STs (PoA), 1989 was passed. That Committee has met, so far, 10 times. The situation in 25 States and 4 Union Territories were reviewed. That committee has expressed that the most important areas of concern are the following five: Drawbacks , Misuse and lacunae. Bias. Going through the Indian judicial system is degrading for any Dalit because of the still existing biases of the court judges. One example is the conduct of an Allahabad High Court judge who had his chambers "purified" with water from the 'ganga jal' because a Dalit judge had previously  sat in that chamber before him. Another example is the case of State of Karnataka v. Ingale. The State of Karnataka had charged five individuals with violating the SC/ST Act. At trial, four witnesses testified that the defendants had threatened Dalits with a gun to stop them from taking water from a well. The defendants told the Dalits that they had no right to take water, because they were 'untouchables'. The trial judge convicted all of the defendants. On appeal, the Additional Sessions judge confirmed the conviction of three defendants but acquitted two. On further appeal to the High  Court, the judge acquitted all the defendants after rejecting testimony of the four Dalit witnesses. The Dalits finally got relief from the Supreme Court. The High Court's reluctance to believe the Dalits was a "patent error," according to Justice Ramaswamy. Perhaps the most important bias (re implementation of this Act) is that there is little done to prevent atrocities. Most of the reports are of what is done after an atrocity has been committed. Few states have preventive measures in place. The 'relief' provided is a pittance and the confidence of the community is seldom rebuilt. For some, the  low conviction rates are evidence of misuse of the Act by the SCs and STs to threaten and blackmail other communities. The acquittal rates are abnormally high, as acknowledged by the prime minister and home minister (quoted above). There is also a high rate of FIRs rejected as being 'false' by the police, with 10% of the total cases investigated in 2016 being closed as 'false'. Misuse. There has also been concern regarding misuse of the act for settling of personal scores. 75% cases were found to be false in Madhya Pradesh in a survey. 81% cases under SC/ST  Atrocities Act were registered against persons from OBC section, 14% upper castes and 5 percent minorities sections. Justice Karnan, a controversial ex-High Court judge had used the provisions of this act to give a controversial judgement against the then Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh Khehar punishing him with 5 years rigorous imprisonment. The issue of false cases and misuse of the Act is found in the March 2018 decision of the Supreme Court in "Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr." In addition to questioning Section 18 of the Act, which prohibits grant of anticipatory bail for  offences committed under the Act, the court laid down guidelines, substantially diluting the provisions of the Act. The court granted additional powers to the investigating officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry before lodging a complaint. Further, written permission of the appointing authority for all public officials and of the District Superintendent of Police for other persons is required before a complaint is registered. There has also been reports of a man committing suicide after being threatened with a case against him under the act. A man in UP had to spend 20 years in prison after being implicated in a  false case under the provisions of this act. According to data available with Rajasthan police around 40% of cases filed under this act are fake. Legal system. The legal regime is fraught with contradictions. While the legal text is explicit in seeking remedies, the implementation of the text appears to evade actual performance. Laws and legal processes are not self-executing; they depend on the administrative structure and the judiciary with the anticipation that the social attitudes are driven by notions of equity, social justice and fair play. However, the increasingly indifferent responses of those involved in the implementation of  laws protecting the weak, the oppressed and the socially disadvantaged have persisted over the years and the system has failed to provide for self-correction. The problem is that the victims of atrocities suffer not only bodily and mental pain but also feelings of insecurity and social avoidance which is not present for the victims of other crimes. If the judge delegated to protect them shows indifference, it further aggravates their already vulnerable position. Empowering provisions. Migration. Under constitutional provisions, a caste or tribe is notified with reference to a State or Union territory. Hence a person born in state /UT gets certificate of SC/ST if his/her father belongs to specified caste/tribe in that state as SC/ST. On migration to another state, they lose their SC/ST status for affirmative actions, i.e. benefit of admission in educational institutes, reservation in government employment etc. "but the protection accorded under this Act stays". Once a person is notified as SC/ST in any state/UT, they are protected under the SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 throughout the country, irrespective of whether the particular caste or tribe is notified in the state/UT where the offence  is committed. Legal aid. Legal aid is available for all victims regardless of financial status. For all others legal aid depends on the financial status. Civil society response. Monitoring implementation. Comprehensive tools have been developed to monitor the implementation of the Act for each case, and at the district and state levels. Many civil society organisations (CSOs) started using this Act to provide some relief to the victims almost immediately. A few Dalit and human rights organizations took to monitoring violence against the SC&ST communities, documenting them, publicizing them and also monitoring the use of the Act in dealing with  these crimes. One of the first to monitor the implementation of this Act was Sakshi in Andhra Pradesh. The full monitoring of the Act by CSOs is a later phenomenon and has not matured in that civil society reports on implementation of the Act (shadow reports to the ones mandated by the Act section 21(4)) are yet to be done. Annual reports by Citizen's monitoring committees have been done in Karnataka since 2009 (in English and Kannada), (with monitoring tools), auditing the performance of the State, including the bureaucracy, judicial system, police and monitoring mechanisms (DVMCs and SVMC). Citizens  committees have begun monitoring the act in Tamil Nadu since 2016 and have brought out several annual status reports and report cards in English and Tamil. However, atrocities across the country still continue to rise, and convictions remain low, as the annual Crime In India reports of the National Crime Records Bureau show. Filing PILs for implementation. Some organizations also used the provisions of the Public Interest Litigations (PIL) to demand better implementation under the Act at High Court level and National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR) in the Supreme Court of India. National coalition for Strengthening SC&ST PoA  Act. On the 20th anniversary of its enactment, CSOs came together from across the country to review its implementation and formed the National Coalition for Strengthening SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act Dr Sirivella Prasad as its National Convener. This coalition took stock of the implementation of the Act in a "report card", analysed the lacunae and suggested a set of amendments for improving the implementation. State specific "fact sheets" were also made available for Madhya Pradesh and Bihar. Many important areas such as social and economic boycotts, causing hurt, destruction of property, defining the SC communities to include those  who profess a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, and better monitoring mechanisms were identified. Continuous monitoring. The government has set up a helpdesk to monitor implementation in 2021. Many human rights organisations continue to monitor the implementation of the Act, and bring out state level reports and factsheets. A thirty year scorecard in English and Tamil was released on the 30th anniversary of the Act on 11 September 2020. A dedicated website was launched on 11 September 2021 as the data repository. It has all available annual reports of the Government of India since 1990 and state/UT reports . The state reports (except Tamil Nadu) are extracts from the union reports. It has state annual reports for Tamil Nadu, citizens reports for Karnataka from 2009 and Tamil Nadu since 2017. It also has the tools and resources required for monitoring the implementation at the district level, sub-divisional level, and a simple tool to monitor a case in Tamil. Amendment Ordinance 2014 (No 1 of 2014). The Amendment Ordinance 2014 was signed by the president on 4 March 2014 and came into force immediately. Since it was an ordinance, and was not ratified by (the next) parliament within six  months it lapsed. It was then referred back to the cabinet. Amendment Act 2015. This Act was passed to replace the ordinance of 2014. The bill was introduced in parliament on 7 July 2014 and referred to the standing committee on 17 July 2014. Subsequently, it was passed by the Lok Sabha on 4 August 2015 and then by the Rajya Sabha in December of that year. It is virtually the same as the ordinance, with a few changes to improve efficiency. The key features of the Amendment Act of 2015 are Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities