Click herefor Part-I of the issue
What are the concerns with SC’s move?
- SC claims that the act has not led to an increase in convictions so far and many file cases under this act against higher level bureaucrats to defame them.
- SC also found that 15-16 per cent of atrocity cases meet a premature end at the magistrate’s desk without any proper evidence.
- But from Supreme Court’s earlier judgements it is evident that SC has failed to establish the prevalence to any degree of abuse of the law.
- It has now taken a single case to make a blanket amendment to the law, which has implications for all atrocity accused and not just public servants.
What are the practical concerns faced by the scheduled castes?
- Many surveys proves that in various scenarios a victim need to face uphill tasks for registering a complaint and the FIRs were also filed in adverse circumstances.
- In many instances the victims are threatened by the authorities from registering a complaint.
- Even after the FIR is registered, the perpetrators, often in connivance with the police tamper with evidencetowards weakening the case or coaxing the complainant to withdraw.
- These attempts at intimidation and active obstruction by perpetrators mar the fate of cases in courts too.
- Most upper-dominant castes believe that the Atrocities Act grants it immunity from further retribution.
What measures needs to be considered?
- The judiciary needs to be sensitised to the nature and operation of caste in Indian society if it is to uphold this faith.
- Unravelling the truth in acts of willing and dehumanising violence, for which there is a seeming tolerance in society, requires an unsparing law.
Source: Indian Express
