Relief for SC/ST can't be at cost of innocent: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to stay its March 20 judgment pertaining to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act that has provoked widespread anger among the Dalit community leading to protests and violence nationwide.

A bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit, who had pronounced the contentious March 20 order, observed that it was not concerned with the violence that had paralysed the nation since it had not diluted the SC/ST Act. "Those protesting on the streets may have not even read our judgment. They are being misled by some vested interests so that does not concern us," the bench said.

The bench added that it had not touched upon the law in the act, but merely added safeguards from arrests in order to protect the innocent victims. "No relief can be given to the SC/ST community without protecting the fundamental rights of an innocent person," Justice Goel added.

However, the bench agreed that compensation to the victims could be disbursed without the registration of an FIR which could be done after the 'preliminary inquiry' (PE) of the complaint under the act. Registration of offences under allied acts could also be done independently of the PE.

Buckling under the violent protest that erupted from the Bharat Bandh organised by the Dalit community on April 2 and claimed lives of at least 11 people, the Centre had sought a review of the top court's order that appeared to water down the provisions of the SC/St Act. However, Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, failed to convince the bench to suspend the judgment.

Venugopal submitted that any law can be abused for vested interests, however, by singling out the SC/ST act, the top court was essentially putting the onus on the Dalit community for allegedly abusing a law.

However, Justice Goel, the author of the 89-page judgement said, the judgment fortified the Act. "Our judgment implements what is said in the Constitution. We are conscious of the rights of the underprivileged and place it at the highest pedestal... but at the same time, an innocent person cannot be falsely implicated and arrested without proper verification. We have not stopped the implementation of the Act. Does the Act mandate the arrest of innocent persons? Our judgment is not against the Act," Justice Goel said addressing Venugopal.

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," the bench had said.

Senior advocate Amarendra Sharan, who was the amicus curiae in the case, backed the top court and agreed the protests and the violence were promoted by those with vested interest. After perusing the judgment, Sharan observed that "there is no dilution of any provision of the SC/ST Act relating to compensation, trial, punishment or otherwise. The order only safeguards abuse of power of arrest or of false implication of an innocent without in any manner affecting the rights of the members of the SC/ST."