Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-1989 and Protection of Civil Right | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Objective

• The primary aim of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is to prevent the occurrence of atrocities against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 
• It establishes Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts to address such offenses, ensuring the trial of perpetrators and the provision of relief and rehabilitation for victims. The Act addresses the historical, social, and economic reasons behind the crimes committed against these communities. 
• Despite efforts to improve their socio-economic conditions, members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes continue to face vulnerabilities, denial of civil rights, various offenses, indignities, and harassment, including incidents resulting in loss of life and property.

Significance

• The Act was implemented due to the inadequacy of existing laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and the Indian Penal Code in preventing these atrocities, which are defined as 'atrocities' within the Act. 
• It aims to safeguard the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from such crimes and ensure their well-being.

Objectives of the Act

• The objectives underscore the government's commitment to delivering justice to these communities. 
• The Act aims to empower them to live in society with dignity, self-esteem, without fear, violence, or suppression from dominant castes.

Constitutional Provisions

• Background: The framers of the Indian Constitution recognized the need for specific safeguards to uplift Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) communities in India. The Constitution's Preamble emphasizes justice (social, economic, and political), liberty, equality, and fraternity, ensuring individual dignity, national unity, and integrity.
• Provisions: Constitutional safeguards for Backward Classes, especially SCs & STs, encompass social, economic, political, educational, cultural, and service-related aspects for their development. Articles 366(24) and (25), along with Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, define Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and outline the scheduling process.
• Article 341: This article empowers the President, in consultation with the Governor, to specify castes, races, or tribes as Scheduled Castes for a State or Union Territory. Parliament can adjust the list of Scheduled Castes through legislation, maintaining the integrity of notifications issued under this provision.

Definitions

• Scheduled Castes: Refers to specific castes, races, or tribes identified under Article 341 as Scheduled Castes in the Constitution.
• Scheduled Tribes: Denotes tribes or tribal communities recognized under Article 342 as Scheduled Tribes in the Constitution.

Safeguards for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

• Social Safeguards: Enshrined in Articles 17, 23, 24, and 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, these safeguards aim to protect the interests of Scheduled Castes.
• Economic Safeguards: Ensuring economic security and opportunities for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Educational & Cultural Safeguards: Focusing on educational and cultural empowerment for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Political Safeguards: Providing political representation and rights for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Service Safeguards: Ensuring fair treatment and opportunities in public service for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Social Safeguards

• Article 17 emphasizes the abolition of untouchability and prohibits its practice through legal enforcement.
• Legislative acts such as the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were enacted to combat untouchability.

Prohibition of Traffic in Human Beings and Forced Labor (Article 23)

• Article 23 prohibits forms of forced labor like traffic in human beings and 'begar' and mandates legal penalties for violations.
• Special significance for Scheduled Castes as a significant portion of bonded laborers belong to this group.
• The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, was passed for the identification and rehabilitation of bonded laborers.

Prohibition of Employment of Children in Factories (Article 24)

• Article 24 prohibits the employment of children below 14 years in hazardous occupations like factories or mines.
• Although not explicitly mentioning Scheduled Castes, a considerable number of child laborers in hazardous jobs come from this community.

Freedom of Conscience and Religion (Article 25(2)(b))

• Article 25(2)(b) guarantees freedom of conscience and the practice of religion, with provisions allowing the state to make laws without hindrance.

Economic Safeguards

• Articles 23, 24, and 46 are designed to protect the economic interests of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Article 46 focuses on promoting the educational and economic well-being of these marginalized groups, aiming to shield them from social injustices and exploitation.

Educational and Cultural Safeguards

• Article 15(4) prohibits discrimination based on various factors like religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
• This article allows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Political Safeguards

• Article 243D mandates the reservation of seats in Panchayats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, ensuring fair representation based on population.
• Reserved seats in Panchayats should reflect the proportion of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the population of the area.
• At least one-third of seats reserved under clause (1) are for women from Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
• One-third of seats in every Panchayat must be reserved for women, including seats allocated by rotation.
• Chairperson positions in Panchayats are also reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and women according to state legislation.

Article 243T - Reservation of Seats in Municipalities

• Seats are set aside for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in each Municipality based on their population.
• At least one-third of the reserved seats are for women of Scheduled Castes or Tribes.
• One-third of all seats for direct election in Municipalities are reserved for women.
• Chairperson positions are also reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and women.
• Reservation ceases as per Article 334.
• States can also reserve seats for backward class citizens.

Article 330 - Reservation in the House of the People (Loksabha)

• Seats in the House of the People are reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Reservation is based on the population percentage of these groups in each state/Union territory.

Article 332 - Reservation in State Legislative Assemblies

• Similar to Article 330, this article provides reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in State Legislative Assemblies.

Reservation of Seats

• Seats are reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of every State. However, Scheduled Tribes in tribal areas of Assam, Nagaland, and Meghalaya are exempted.
• Autonomous districts in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Assam also have reserved seats.
• The number of reserved seats for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes is proportionate to their population in the State.

Service Safeguards

• Article 16(4): Ensures equality of opportunity in public employment without hindering reservations for backward classes.
• Article 16(4A): Allows reservations for promotions to posts for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Article 335: Considers claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in appointments while maintaining administrative efficiency.

Other Constitutional Provisions

• Article 338 - National Commission for Scheduled Castes:
  • Investigates matters concerning safeguards for Scheduled Castes.
  • Inquires into complaints regarding their rights and safeguards.
  • Advises on their socio-economic development planning.
  • Performs functions for their protection, welfare, and advancement as specified.
• Article 338A: Provides a similar National Commission for Scheduled Tribes.

Index of Cases related to The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Jurisdiction

• Achla D. Sapre v. Asha Mahilkar 2016 SCC OnLine Chh 294
• Dhiraj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand 2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 2266
• Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 2623
• Khursid Khan v. State of Chattisgarh Criminal Revision No. 903 of 2019

Public View- Under Section 3(1) (x) (prior to amendment of 2016); Now under 3 (1) (r) and (s)

• Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. & Others (2008) 12 SCC 531
• State of Rajasthan v. Shivdan, son of Danudan (2016) 4 CrLR 2082
• Gautam v. State (1999) 0 CrLR 500
• Trilochan Singh S/o Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 CrLR 556
• Balu s/o Bajirao Galande v. State of Maharashtra & anr. (2006) 6 AIR(Bom)(R) 251
• Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 3 MhLJ 368
• Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2020 SCCOnline P&H 671
• Salim Abdul Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal No. 1030 of 2018
• KP Thakur & Anr. v. State of UP & Anr. Application U/S 482 No. - 40418 of 2012
• Pappu Kanwar V. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (11.02.2020 MANU/RH/0348/2020

Presumption as to offences- Section 8

• Vaghela Dilipbhai Gulabsang v. State of Gujarat Criminal Appeal No. 1355 of 2019
• Rajulapati Ankababu v. State of A.P. 2018 (1) ALT (Crl.) 247 (A.P.)
• Kulwinder and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. 252 (2018) DLT 1
• Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2020 SC 1036

Eyewitness

• Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh v. State of Gujarat (2019) 6 SCC 535
• Kanku v. State of Rajasthan D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 544/2004
• State of Rajasthan v. Sumersingh (2015) 4 CrLR 1946
• Prakash v. State of Rajasthan (2008) 1 RLW(Raj) 918
• Anil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 3 RLW(Raj) 2492
• Dahyabhai Revabhai Chamar & Others v. State of Gujarat (2009) 1 GLH 245

Conviction under IPC and SC/ST Act

• Asharfi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 1 SCC 742

Probation- Section 19

• Abaji s/o. Shripatrao Tekale & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 2 MhLJ(Cri) 594

Anticipatory Bail- Section 18 and 18A

• Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Others 2020 SCC OnLine SC 159
• Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795
• Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr (2018) 6 SCC 454
• Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 332
• Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565
• Smt. Suman Rathore v. State of Rajasthan and Another 2008(4) Crimes 729 (Raj.)

Victim Compensation- under SC/ST Act and Rules

• Union of India v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2018) 6 SCC 450
• Union of India v. State Of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 2019 SC 4917

List of Judgments on Jurisdiction

Section 14 of the Act

S.14: Special Court and Exclusive Special Court

• State Government, with the Chief Justice of the High Court's agreement, establishes Exclusive Special Court for speedy trials in one or more Districts.
• In Districts with fewer cases, State Government specifies the Court of Session as a Special Court for trying offences under this Act.
• Established or specified Courts have the power to directly address offences under this Act.
• It is the State Government's responsibility to set up an adequate number of Courts to ensure cases under this Act are resolved within two months whenever possible.
• Trials in Special Courts proceed day-to-day until all witnesses are examined unless an adjournment is necessary and recorded in writing.
• Ideally, trials related to offences under this Act should be completed within two months from the charge sheet filing date.

Section 20 of the Act

• Act to override other laws: The provisions of this Act take precedence over any inconsistent elements in other laws, customs, or instruments in effect.

Case Examples:

• Achla D. Sapre v. Asha Mahilkar 2016 SCC OnLine Chh 294
  • In this case, the Chattisgarh High Court ruled that only Special Courts designated under Section 14 of the Act have the authority to take direct cognizance of specific offences.
  • Judicial Magistrates are not considered Special Courts as per the Act.
• Dhiraj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand 2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 2266
  • Jharkhand High Court affirmed that only a Special Court can take cognizance of offences under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
  • The Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot handle such cases according to the court's decision.

Special Court Establishment

• Supreme Court mandated the formation of a Special Court for trying offenses under a particular Act.

Retrospective Operation of Amendments

• In a Supreme Court case, it was determined that certain amendments would apply retrospectively to pending cases.
• Key principles regarding the retrospective operation of amending acts were outlined, distinguishing between substantive and procedural laws.

Retroactive Effect of Section 14

• The Chhattisgarh High Court, based on a Supreme Court judgment, inferred a retrospective effect of Section 14 of a specific Act, eliminating the need for committal in a particular case.

Public View

• Post the 2016 amendment, the term "public view" is referenced in specific sections of the law concerning punishments for offenses against marginalized communities.
• An example case, Swaran Singh and Others v. State, discussed the interpretation and application of the term "place within public view" in legal proceedings.

Public Place vs. Place within Public View

• The term "place within public view" is distinct from the term "public place." It signifies a location that, while private, is observable by the public. In contrast, a public place typically refers to property owned by the government or its entities, not by private individuals or organizations.
• Example: A private residence with a visible backyard fence could be considered a place within public view, even though it is not a public place in the traditional sense.

Legal Precedents and Interpretations

• In Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. & Others (2008) 12 SCC 531, the Supreme Court emphasized that for an offense under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the accused must have intentionally insulted or intimidated the victim within public view, with a specific focus on caste-related discrimination.
• Example: Failure to allege that the accused was not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe and intentionally insulted the victim within public view can invalidate a complaint under the law.
• In State of Rajasthan v. Shivdan, son of Danudan (2016) 4 CrLR 2082, the Rajasthan High Court highlighted the importance of evidence in cases involving caste-based discrimination under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
• Example: Without concrete proof of intentional discrimination based on caste, the accused may be released, as seen in cases with insufficient or delayed FIR filings.
• In Gautam v. State 1999 0 CrLR 500, the Rajasthan High Court clarified that an offense under the Act does not necessarily have to occur in a public place but must occur in public view.
• Example: An act of discrimination or intimidation need not take place in a government-owned space to be punishable; it must only be observable by the public.

Interpretation of Key Terms in Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act

• Definitions involving terms such as "intentional," "insult," "intimidate," and "humiliate" are crucial for understanding the scope of the law and its application to cases of discrimination against marginalized communities.
• Example: The term "humiliate" entails causing someone to lose self-respect in the eyes of others, with the added condition that this humiliation must occur in public view, not necessarily in a public place.

Judicial Interpretations on Public View

• Courts have emphasized that for an act to be considered within public view, the observers must be neutral and impartial, without any vested interest in the parties involved.
• Example: In Balu s/o Bajirao Galande v. State of Maharashtra & anr. (2006) 6 AIR(Bom)(R) 251, the Bombay High Court stressed that individuals witnessing the incident should be unbiased and independent.
• In Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 3 MhLJ 368, the Bombay High Court clarified that Section 3(1)(x) of the Act applies specifically to instances of insulting or intimidating Scheduled Caste members within public view.

Meaning of "Public View" in Atrocities Act

• The expression "in any place within public view" holds a specific meaning. It does not signify that every allegation made in a public place automatically constitutes an offense under the Act.
• For an offense to occur, insult or intimidation must transpire in a location accessible to and in the presence of the public. Both these elements are crucial for an act to be deemed an offense under the law.
• Two essential ingredients for an offense are: (i) the use of insulting words and (ii) their utterance in public.

Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

• In this case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasized that for an offense to be constituted under the Act, it must be claimed that the accused intentionally insulted or intimidated a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a public place within public view.
• The court asserted that using caste-related words without public visibility does not constitute an offense.

Salim Abdul Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

• The Bombay High Court ruled that insult or humiliation must occur in the presence of at least one independent public witness for an offense to qualify as an atrocity under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Offense under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act

• Under this section, an offense of atrocity is established only when it happens "in any place within public view." The presence of witnesses is crucial for proving the offense.
• Insults or humiliation must occur in the presence of at least one independent public witness for the offense to be valid.

KP Thakur & Anr. v. State of UP & Anr.

• The Allahabad High Court clarified that for an offense to be constituted under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the alleged offense must occur in "public view."
• If a person is insulted for belonging to the SC/ST community behind closed doors, the Act cannot be applied.
• The court highlighted that the offense allegedly committed lacked the crucial element of 'public view.'

Case Law Examples

Case: Chamber of the Enquiry Officer

Key Points:

• The occurrence at the Chamber is not considered a public view according to the apex court.
• Observation: The essential element of the offense under Section 3(1)(X) of the Act was found to be missing.

Case: Pappu Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan

Key Points:

• No substantial evidence to infer that the accused insulted the deceased based on caste.
• Witnesses did not personally witness the conversation between the accused and the deceased.
• Charge-sheet conclusions were deemed conjectural and lacking substantive evidence.

Presumption as to Offenses

Section 8 of the Act: Presumptions:

• If accused provided financial assistance related to the offense, it is presumed they abetted the offense.
• If a group committed an offense due to an existing dispute, it's presumed to be in furtherance of common intention.
• If accused had personal knowledge of the victim or family, it's presumed they were aware of caste identity.

Case Law Example: Vaghela Dilipbhai Gulabsang v. State of Gujarat

• Key Points:

  • Statutory presumptions under the Act.
  • Importance of knowledge of the caste of the victim or family for certain offenses.
  • The court shall presume awareness of caste if accused had personal knowledge of victim or family.
• Definition of Victim:
  • In legal terms, a victim is someone who has either experienced physical, mental, emotional, or monetary harm due to an offense. This definition extends to their relatives, legal guardian, and legal heirs. For example, if a person is harmed or suffers due to a criminal act, they are considered a victim according to the law.
• Presumption of Knowledge of Caste:
  • According to the law, in certain situations, the court can presume that the accused is aware of the victim's caste, particularly in cases related to offenses against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. For instance, if there is evidence suggesting a connection between the accused and the victim, such as frequent interactions or shared relationships, the court may presume knowledge of the victim's caste.
• Legal Presumptions:
  • The legal system allows for certain presumptions to be made until proven otherwise. For example, in cases involving offenses related to land disputes or similar matters, there can be a presumption of common intention among a group of individuals involved in the offense.
• Misuse of Law:
  • It is important to note that there should be no presumption that members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes misuse legal provisions. This presumption should not be based on caste but on individual actions. For instance, lodging a false report should not be automatically attributed to one's caste but seen as a human error.
  • Members of marginalized communities may face barriers in accessing legal remedies due to historical disadvantages. Therefore, attributing misuse of laws to caste is not accurate and should be avoided.
• Handling False Reports:
  • When dealing with false or unsubstantiated reports, it is essential to consider various factors such as flawed investigations or individual shortcomings. While false reports are a concern, they should not lead to a generalization about a particular community. Legal mechanisms exist to address such issues without changing laws based on isolated incidents.

Eyewitness Testimony in Legal Cases

• In this case, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of eyewitness testimony. When eyewitnesses provide contradictory evidence, the guilt of the accused cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
• It was noted that while motive is relevant, it can also be a double-edged sword. The presence of motive can strengthen the testimony of eyewitnesses, but it is not conclusive proof.
• Factors such as darkness at the time of the incident and contradictory accounts among witnesses can create reasonable doubt. In such cases, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused.

Kanku vs. State of Rajasthan (16.07.2019 - RAJHC)

• The Rajasthan High Court emphasized the need for corroborating eyewitness statements. 
• In a specific instance, the court found the testimony of an eyewitness lacking in credibility as it was not supported by other reliable evidence.

Digamber Vaishnav & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) 4 SCC 522

• The Supreme Court discussed the reliability of child witnesses. 
• While the testimony of a child witness can be crucial, corroboration from other reliable sources is often sought for conviction. 
• The court must ensure that the child witness is reliable and not influenced by external factors.

State of Rajasthan v. Sumersingh (2015) 4 CrLR 1946

• In this case, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the trial court's decision to acquit the accused. 
• The prosecution failed to prove the allegations due to inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies. 
• Lack of concrete evidence led to the accused being acquitted.

Prakash v. State of Rajasthan (2008) 1 RLW(Raj) 918

• The Rajasthan High Court emphasized the importance of evaluating witness testimony. 
• The court highlighted the need to assess the credibility of witnesses and scrutinize evidence for reliability, taking into account any shortcomings or inconsistencies.

Evaluation of Evidence in Legal Context

Importance of Evaluation

• When examining evidence in legal proceedings, it is crucial to look at the evidence as a whole and assess whether it contradicts the general trend of evidence.

Precedent in Anil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

• In a case from Rajasthan, the court referred to a judgment by the Supreme Court which emphasized that suspicion alone cannot be a basis for a conviction, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.

Last Seen Theory

• The last-seen theory is significant in cases where the time gap between when the victim was last seen alive and when they were found deceased is minimal, making it unlikely for anyone other than the accused to be responsible for the crime.

Voluntary Disclosure Statements

• For disclosure statements to be considered voluntary, they should be made in the presence of an independent witness, as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Credibility of Witnesses

Rulings in Dahyabhai Revabhai Chamar & Others v. State of Gujarat

• The High Court of Gujarat highlighted the importance of carefully assessing witness credibility, stating that consistency in testimony is not the sole indicator of truthfulness.

Evaluating Witness Credibility

• When determining the credibility of a witness, the court must consider various factors beyond just the content of their testimony, including surrounding circumstances and reasonable probabilities.

Factors Affecting Witness Credibility

• Factors such as the witness's opportunity to observe the crime, their usual behavior, and the inherent reliability of their testimony should all be taken into account.

Witness Credibility

• According to Phipson on evidence 14th edition, the credibility of a witness is based on factors such as their knowledge of the facts, intelligence, disinterestness, integrity, and veracity. 
• The court or jury assesses the degree of credit a witness deserves based on these qualities.

Conviction under the Act

• Section 3 of the Act specifies punishments for offenses and atrocities, including imprisonment for life and fines for those who commit certain offenses against Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
• Section 5 of the Act states that enhanced punishment is applicable for subsequent convictions under the Act.
• Section 6 of the Act applies certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code for the purposes of this Act.

Application of Provisions

• A person meeting the criteria outlined in the relevant sections will be convicted under both the Indian Penal Code and the Act.

Judicial Illustration

• In the case of Asharfi v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2018 1 SCC 742, the appellant was convicted for various offenses under the IPC and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
• For instance, the appellant received sentences including rigorous imprisonment and fines for specific offenses under the IPC and the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.

Conviction under Special Law

• In this scenario, the appellant was not proven to have committed the offense against the victim based on their Scheduled Caste status. 
• Consequently, the conviction under the specific Act was overturned, while the conviction under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was maintained. 
• To secure a conviction under the special law, all requirements of the law must be met.

Probation Provisions

• Section 19 of the Act states that individuals above eighteen years found guilty of an offense under this Act are not eligible for the benefits of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code or the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 
• A court ruling clarified that the application of Section 360 of the CrPC cannot be extended to the accused under this Act. Courts are urged to impose suitable sentences that match the gravity of the offense to uphold justice.

Anticipatory Bail Restrictions

• Sections 18 and 18A of the Act outline that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to cases involving arrests related to offenses under this Act. 
• No preliminary enquiry is needed for filing an FIR, and the provisions of Section 438 of the Code do not extend to cases under this Act, regardless of any legal decisions.

Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Others 2020 SCC OnLine SC 159

• The Supreme Court clarified that Section 438 Cr.PC does not apply to cases under the Act of 1989. However, if a complaint lacks a prima facie case under the Act of 1989, the bar created by sections 18 and 18A (i) does not apply.
• Justice Bhat emphasized that the power to grant pre-arrest bail should be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases where no prima facie offense is evident in the FIR, to prevent a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law.

Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795

• Section 18 of the SC/ST Act combined with Section 438 of the Code prohibits anticipatory bail unless it is prima facie clear that the offense is not made out. Courts are limited in their scope to appreciate evidence and are not expected to extensively analyze evidence on record.

Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr (2018) 6 SCC 454

• The Supreme Court ruled that there is no absolute bar against granting anticipatory bail in Atrocities Act cases if no prima facie case is established or if the complaint is found to be prima facie malafide on judicial scrutiny.

Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 332

• Sections 437(5) and 439(2) allow a person to be taken into custody even if they were previously released on bail. The court recognized the distinction between canceling bail and directing a person to be taken into custody under Section 439(2).
• If a more serious offense is added to the FIR after bail is granted, a direction under Section 439(2) or 437(5) is necessary before re-arresting the individual for the new offenses.

Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565

• The Supreme Court highlighted that granting unconditional anticipatory bail would contradict the terms of Section 438. While discretion is conferred by Section 438(1), Section 438(2) imposes limitations.

Conditions for Bail Cancellation:

• The court has the authority to impose suitable conditions in the bail order based on the case's specifics.
• Concealment of crucial facts can lead to bail cancellation, but these facts must be significant and such that their disclosure would have impacted the bail decision.
• A strong and undeniable case is essential for revoking already granted bail.

Victim Compensation under Section 15A

• Victims, dependents, informants, and witnesses are entitled to various rights and support during the legal process, including:
• Complete protection for ensuring justice.
• Coverage of travel and living expenses throughout the investigation, inquiry, and trial.
• Social and economic rehabilitation during the legal proceedings.
• Provision for relocation.

Measures by District Administration as per Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Rules, 1995

• Immediate relief, including cash or essential items, to victims of atrocities and their families.
• Additional compensation beyond what is available under other laws in case of injury, death, or property damage.
• Reporting of relief and rehabilitation efforts to the Special Court for oversight and potential corrective action.
• The State Government should have a contingency plan in place per Rule 15 (1) (f) to effectively implement the Act.

Victim Compensation Scheme under Criminal Procedure Code

• Every state government, in coordination with the central government, is mandated to devise a scheme to provide funds for compensating victims or their dependents who have suffered losses due to a crime and require rehabilitation.
• When a court recommends compensation, the District Legal Service Authority or State Legal Service Authority determines the amount to be awarded.
• If the compensation provided under Section 357 is deemed insufficient for rehabilitation or if the case ends in acquittal, the trial court may suggest further compensation.
• In cases where the offender cannot be traced but the victim is identified, application for compensation can be made to the State or District Legal Services Authority.
• Upon receiving recommendations or applications, the State or District Legal Services Authority conducts an inquiry and awards suitable compensation within two months.
• The Authority may also provide immediate first-aid or medical benefits at no cost to alleviate the victim's suffering.

Immediate Assistance to SC/ST Victims

• As per Rule 12(4) and (4A) of the 2016 Amendment to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, immediate compensation or assistance must be given to victims belonging to these communities.
• There are no delays in providing compensation or relief to SC/ST victims, and FIRs can be registered promptly under relevant laws.
• The SC/ST Act's provisions regarding compensation, trial, and punishment remain intact.

Right to Live and Die with Dignity

• The Supreme Court has emphasized the right to live and die with dignity as part of human rights.
• Compensation is considered a crucial component for violations of human rights under Article 21, as outlined in the Act of 1989.
• Protecting one's reputation is deemed essential for personal security and is safeguarded by the Constitution alongside rights to life, liberty, and property.

Citizen Rights Under Article 21

• Legal Understanding: The rights of a citizen under Article 21 have been underscored in various legal cases such as Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013) 10 SCC 591, Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 2 SCC 398, and Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221. These cases emphasize the significance of Article 21 in safeguarding citizen rights.
• Relevance of the Act of 1989: The provisions contained in the Act of 1989 are essentially complementary to the different aspects encompassed within Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. They serve to protect and uphold the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21.
• Protection of Rights: The Act of 1989 ensures the protection of various rights that are fundamental to the well-being and dignity of individuals. These rights are intrinsically linked to the broader concept of Article 21, emphasizing the importance of individual liberties and freedoms.
• Constitutional Significance: The provisions of the Act of 1989 play a crucial role in upholding the constitutional mandate of Article 21, which is aimed at ensuring justice, equality, and the protection of individual rights within the framework of the Indian legal system.