In its petition, the Ministry for Social Justice prayed for an open court hearing and submitted that diluting the provision of the Act would increase fear among the Dalit and make them more vulnerable.
The Supreme Court has declined the Centre's request for an urgent hearing after it filed a "comprehensive" petition that sought a review of its recent judgment watering down the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
In its petition, the Ministry for Social Justice prayed for an open court hearing and submitted that diluting the provision of the Act would increase fear among the Dalit and make them more vulnerable.
Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh contended that the March 20 apex court judgment that added "safeguards" to the Act has wide ramifications and implications. Singh prayed that the judgment would not only adversely affect a substantial population of the SC/STs but also added that the provision for arrest was the backbone of the Act.
"The alleged potential of misuse would not be deserved to considered as a valid, justifiable or permissible ground for reading down the stringent provisions of the PoA Act 1989. Such a principle if extended to offences created under other provisions of law would render criminal law and criminal procedure system toothless and nugatory…" the Centre said.
In its petition on Monday, the Centre submitted that the judgment suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record since the top court failed to appreciate certain facts and settled principles of law. The Centre suggested that despite the deterrent provision in the Act the continuing atrocities against the Dalit community were a cause of concern.
"High incidence of occurrence of offences against them also indicated that the deterrent effect of the POA 1989 Act was not adequately felt by the accused".
Despite the amendments to the Act, the Centre relied on the low rate of conviction and high rate of acquittal under the Act to show "delay in lodging FIR, witnesses and complainant becoming hostile, absence of proper scrutiny of cases by the Prosecution before filing the chargesheet in court, lack of proper presentation of the case by the prosecution and appreciation of evidence by the Court."
On March 20, the apex court observed that a law that was primarily enacted to protect the disenfranchised has become a tool to "blackmail" innocent people and public servants. The SC/ST Act, enacted to protect the marginalised has been used to exact "vengeance," a bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit had said in their judgment.
"Innocent citizens are termed as accused, which is not intended by the legislature. The legislature never intended to use the Atrocities Act as an instrument to blackmail or to wreak personal vengeance," the SC observed.
Meanwhile, the Dalit community called for a nationwide bandh to pressurise the Centre in taking concrete steps against the March 20 apex court ruling that ruled out automatic arrests in the face of a complaint under the SC/ST Act. More than five people have died and more than 1,700 anti-riot police have been deployed in the violence-hit areas.
Despite the urgency of the situation, the apex court bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said the petition would be heard in due course of time.
Appearing for the Dalit community — the All India federation of SC/ST organisation — a conglomeration of 150 employee groups advocate Manoj Gaurkella said the recent top court verdict was "unfair and unjust and it should be stayed". Gaurkella also sought a larger bench to decide on this issue.
Seeking a review, the Centre – represented by Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh submitted that diluting the provisions of the act violated the fundamental rights of the SC/ST community.
In a bid to assure the Dalit community, union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said the Centre had filed a "comprehensive" petition in the apex court against the March 20 judgment that has created a ripple in the political circles.
"We do not agree with the Supreme Court order. Senior lawyers will argue (the case) with all authority," the minister said on Monday. Criticising the decision, Minister of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Ram Vilas Paswan hit out against the judgment as well by commenting, "There had never been such a quick step by the government on any issue. Why are parties playing politics over this issue?"
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Bharat Bandh")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}