Shield or Sword? The Double-Edged Law of Atrocities

Abstract

This article majorly deals with how the question that whether the objective for which the ‘The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989’ was enacted, are being fulfilled or has the act fallen short of its expectations. The intent behind enacting such legislation was to ensure social justice for the historically marginalized communities and provide them protection against the caste-based violence that such communities face. However, it would not be wrong to say that over the time, this legislation has become a topic of public debate and has been caught in the crossfire between protecting the basic human rights of the marginalized communities and the allegations of people using this as a means to threaten the fundamental rights of other people.

The concerns are so critical that the Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra (2018) had to acknowledge some flaws in the act and even diluted certain provisions. The apex court introduced safeguards such as – before registering the FIR, the police was required to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the matter and find out if the complaint holds any weight at all. Section 18 of this act is another controversial provision that has always been on the radar of critics; this provision prohibits anticipatory bail for any offense under this act. The SC acknowledged that such provision can very easily lead to increase in number of false accusations and undue harassment of the accused. However, the changes had to be restored following massive protests against the judgment.

While it is important to acknowledge the discrimination and harassment faced by the marginalized communities, one cannot turn a blind eye towards the gross misuse of this act, especially when the statistics evidently call for serious reforms. According to a very alarming data released by the Rajasthan Police, around 40% of all the POA Act cases filed in the state were found to be false[1]. It shows how this act is being wrongly invoked to settle personal scores or to extract money.

In this paper, I have also tried to challenge the overgeneralized perception that the provisions of this act are only used to register false complaints. Although the conviction rates are low, factors like poor investigation, procedural lapses, caste-based power dynamics, etc. cannot be overlooked. By weighing both the sides and following an approach of balanced exploration, this paper aims to come to an even-handed solution which could safeguard the human rights of the SC/ST individuals and at the same time not infringe upon the fundamental rights of others.