The amended Act leaves room for frivolous complaints

The SC/ST Act has largely been ineffective and convictions were rare

The plight of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has been a subject matter of serious concern for decades.

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) was enacted with the objective of putting an end to the atrocities faced by the marginalised, but this Act has largely been ineffective and convictions were rare.

With the object of stricter enforcement of this legislation, earlier this year, amendments have been made to the Act to provide for a broader meaning to the definition of "atrocities" and various other changes including punishment for public servant for neglecting duties under the Act and establishment of special courts solely to prosecute cases under the Act were introduced.

The amended Act and the recent furore over alleged atrocities by companies and the filing of complaints under this Act against companies need to be considered.

Recently, we have witnessed actions against a corporate for violation of this Act. Potential actions against a corporate could be for wrongfully occupying land owned or possessed by a member of the SC/ST, interfering with enjoyment of rights over any land or water and irrigation facilities of a member of the SC/ST or corruption or contamination of water from a source ordinarily used by a member of the SC/ST so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used.

While these are issues that may affect communities at large and not specifically the SC/ST communities, an intention to target the SC/ST is not a prerequisite for a person to be held liable for these atrocities under the Act. Any individual who falls in the SC/ST category can file a complaint, and it need not be a representative action.

The SC/ST Act is a welfare legislation aimed at protecting the marginalised communities. However, it leaves room for frivolous complaints.

It is therefore important that the courts hearing these cases should not entertain such actions, and should form a view on whether the acts have deliberately been committed to cause harm to a person specifically belonging to SC/ST communities. If the community/locality as a whole is affected, the provisions of the SC/ST Act should not be attracted, and courts in the past have followed this view (Western Maharashtra Development Corporation & Ors. v State of Maharashtra & Anr., Bombay High Court, 2013).

The writer is a partner with Trilegal