The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989<\/b> is an Act<\/a> of the Parliament of India<\/a> enacted to prevent atrocities against scheduled castes and scheduled tribes<\/a>. The Act is popularly known as POA, the SC\/ST Act, the Prevention of Atrocities Act, or simply the Atrocities Act<\/i>.<\/p>\n The normal provisions of the existing laws like, the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 and the Indian Penal Code have been found inadequate to check these atrocities<\/sup> continuing the gross indignities and offences against Scheduled Castes and Tribes. Recognizing these, the Parliament passed \u2018Scheduled Caste and Schedu The preamble of the Act also states that the Act is<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/i> of 1995 were framed.<\/sup> The rules for the Act were notified on 31 March 1995.<\/p>\n The purpose of the Act was to help the social inclusion of Dalits<\/a> into Indian society, but the Act has failed to live up to its expectations admitted by the Union Minister for Home Affairs in parliament on 30 August 2010 (quoted below). Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act<\/sup><\/p>\n What does this law do?<\/b><\/p>\n This law does three things:<\/p>\n What sorts of crimes are punished?<\/b><\/p>\n 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 SCs, 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 STs 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 SCs from 1974, and in the case of STs from 1981 onwards, with a special focus on murder, rape, arson and grievous hurt.<\/p>\n Atrocities continued to rise with ferocity and frequency \u2013 for example, in Bihar the massacres of SCs at Belchi in 1979 and at Pipra in 1980; in Uttar Pradesh the massacre following a SC 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 STs at Banjhi in Sahibganj 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.<\/sup><\/p>\n A study conducted by the National Commission for SCs and STs in 1990 on Atrocities on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes: Causes and Remedies<\/i> 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 \u201cencompasses 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\u2026.\u201d<\/sup><\/p>\n Considered ritually impure, SCs 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. \u201cWomen belonging to these castes and tribes bore the double burden. They were exploited by caste and gender, and were vulnerable to and powerless against sexual exploitation.\u201d<\/sup><\/p>\n 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 \u2018untouchability\u2019 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, \u2018untouchability\u2019 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 is 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.<\/p>\n The basic objective and purpose of this more comprehensive and more punitive piece of legislation were sharply enunciated when the Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha:<\/p>\n 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 a society with dignity and self-esteem and without fear, violence or suppression from the dominant castes.<\/sup><\/p>\n The Supreme Court of India too reiterated the significance and importance of the Act:<\/sup><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The salient features of the Act are<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The Act and Rules are a potent mechanisms and precision instruments that can be used in tandem with the Right To Information (RTI) Act 2005 to motivate the state to hold mandatory meetings and enforce compliance. A Human Rights Defenders Monitoring Calendar<\/a> 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)<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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).<\/p>\n In specific terms:<\/p>\n 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. Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act<\/sup><\/p>\n Section 3 of the Act lists the criminal offences and the punishments. It contains:<\/p>\n These protections can be broadly divided into protection from<\/p>\n 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<\/b><\/i> a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe against<\/b><\/i> a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.<\/p>\n 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 the right aptitude and understanding of the problems of the SCs and STs.<\/p>\n 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<\/sup>\u2014defeating the very purpose of having special courts in the first place.<\/p>\n Special Court Justice Ramaswamy observed in the case of State of Karnataka v. Ingale<\/sup> that more than seventy-five per cent of the cases brought under the SC\/ST Act end in an 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)<\/sup> 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 per cent of the cases are still pending.Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act<\/sup><\/p>\n 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.<\/sup><\/p>\n And in rape cases the conviction rate is just 2%<\/sup><\/p>\n Karnataka has only 8 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.<\/sup><\/p>\n According to Rule 7(1)<\/sup> 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).<\/p>\n Various High Courts have vitiated the trial based on the above rule and have improperly set aside the order of conviction.<\/sup> The rule was to ensure that the investigations were of high quality, and the assumption was that senior officials would not be as biased, nor as vulnerable to other pressures, as those in the lower rungs of the police force. But the judges in their wisdom have allowed perpetrators to go free based on this legal fig leaf.<\/p>\n The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in D. Ramlinga Reddy v. State of AP<\/i>,<\/sup> 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 a charge sheet filed by an incompetent officer is more than likely to be quashed. Similarly, the Madras High Court in \n
Contents<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Functioning<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Historical sketch<\/span><\/h2>\n
Necessity<\/span><\/h2>\n
Atrocities rooted in the caste system<\/span><\/h3>\n
Continuing widespread prevalence<\/span><\/h3>\n
Objectives<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
Salient features<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/span>Defining ‘atrocity’<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
Special Courts<\/span><\/h2>\n
Investigation<\/span><\/h2>\n