Sc st act verdict the violent aftermath

Sc st act verdict the violent aftermath

The court must re-examine the SC/ST Act verdict, but in an atmosphere of calm.

The loss of nine lives in violent protests against the Supreme Court ruling introducing safeguards against misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities (a horrific action1)) Act, 1989, is tragic. Clearly, both the Centre and State governments were caught unawares by the scale and intensity of the protests. The government has sought an urgent review, in an attempt to dispel (to cause to depart or be broken apart) the impression that its own stand was responsible for the Division Bench laying down (to state officially what someone must do or how they must do it/to put something down in order to show you are not going to use it again) fresh guidelines on handling complaints under the Act. From the day of the court ruling, what was a matter of concern was the nature of the message the Bench might have conveyed to marginalized (treat (a person, group, or concept) as insignificant or peripheral) and oppressed sections. Norms to safeguard the innocent against false complaints may not have been so unpalatable (unpleasant to the taste/difficult to put up with or accept) as the serious implications of the finding that there is large-scale misuse of the SC/ST Act. Proceeding on this premise, the court ruled that the bar under Section 18 of the Act on grant of anticipatory bail was not absolute. It mandated a preliminary inquiry into complaints before an FIR can be registered and barred any immediate arrest of the accused, unless approved by a higher authority in the case of public servants or the Senior Superintendent of Police in respect of private citizens. Whether these directions amount to judicial legislation and go against the grain (contrary to the natural inclination or feeling of someone or something) of prevailing law and policy are complex questions that need careful judicial determination. But it is a moot question whether recent explosion of Dalit anger stems entirely from the fine print of the judgment. It is likely that it is a result of the perception that in a social environment where the legal and administrative system is already loaded against the community, a verdict like this may worsen the lot of the vulnerable.

As the Bench has now agreed to hear the petition to review its own March 20 order, what is needed is a spell of calm and peace. It is true that the Bench has declined to suspend the order and clarified that its objective was to safeguard the innocent and that it has not diluted the Act or undermined the rights of SCs and STs in any way. In a larger sense, there are two disparate (very different from each other) factors at play — protecting the innocent against harassment and misuse of a law, and faithfully preserving the letter and spirit of a piece of legislation aimed at upholding the rights and dignity of the historically oppressed classes. Neither should be sacrificed for the sake of the other. Given the mood of anger and discontent, it is both pragmatic (concentrating on practical results and facts instead of speculation and opinion) and necessary for the entire question to be re-examined by the court. The first requirement for this is a conducive (to cause or produce something) atmosphere for such a hearing. One hopes that the initial fury has spent itself out and that there will be no cause for its being unleashed (to set free from a restraint/cause (a strong or violent force) to be released or become unrestrained) again.