SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act - The Controversy
iasparliament
April 19, 2018
What is the issue?
Recently, the Supreme Court had sought to alter some provisions of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act which has triggered a controversy.
While court opined that alterations were required to prevent misuse, it was widely perceived as a move to dilute the legislative safeguards for SC/ST.
What were the political reactions?
The judgement had immediately triggered a backlash from reformist and pro-dalit groups and incidents turned violent at certain places.
Additionally, even some BJP MPs and allied parties of the government had voiced against the judgement, all of which generated a political storm.
Hence, the union government moved the apex court to seek a review of the judgement, stressing parliamentary supremacy in law making.
Some BJP ruled state governments that had initially implemented the apex court order had withdrawn the circulars now.
Kerala and some other state governments too have approached the SC for a review of the same, and PM Modi has promised that the law won’t be diluted.
Sources have also indicated that the union government would bring in an ordinance if there is an adverse verdict from the SC on the review petition.
But incidentally, despite the union government’s rhetoric, it is a fact that the BJP-ruled states are where atrocities against Dalits are the most prominent.
How did the case fare with regard to the judiciary?
While the SC has admitted the review petition, the bench had reiterated its concern on the SC/ST Act being misused by some.
Further, the bench stated that the previous judgment was merely to ensure due protection to the liberties of the people (rather than diluting it).
While public sentiment can’t be a ground for the SC to reverse its earlier order, the court needs to recognize that its previous order was a legislative overreach.
The judiciary is not supposed to enter into parliament’s domain in cases where there is an existing law (irrespective of its quality).
While checking the validity of the law, the judiciary should only be looking into its legality and consistency with the basic structure of the constitution.
What is the way ahead?
The government can bring in the ordinance even now, and the parliament can enact the same subsequently to circumvent the judgement.
While the ordinance fascination seems to have ceased now, the SC/ST Act case presents a genuine case that qualifies for ordinance and can be considered.
It is important for the bill or ordinance to provide in clear terms the reasons for reversing the SC order by pondering on the logic applied by the court.
In this case, the SC order was based on the argument that the SC/ST Act was being misused, which needs to be decried for lack of substantiated evidence.
Significantly, the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act (1951) that protected reservations was in fact an over-turning of a court judgement.
