Govt questions SC order on SC ST Act

Unhappy with the Supreme Court order diluting the provisions of the SC/ST Act, the government today said it "differs" with the verdict and questioned why the Union of India was not made a "formal" party in the case.

Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said that the government "differs" with the reasoning given by the Supreme Court judgement "virtually redoing the entire architecture of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act".

He said it is important to note that the government was not firmly made a party in this case and only allowed to make certain oral submissions.

"We feel that a sensitive case of this nature required a more in depth consideration with requisite consideration of objective data to come to a conclusion as to whether the law is being abused or there is a need to give protection to the continued, unfortunate instances of injustice against Dalits," he said.

The apex court had on March 20 said that on "several occasions", innocent citizens were being termed as accused and public servants deterred from performing their duties, which was never the intention of the legislature while enacting the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The top court had said that unless the exclusion of anticipatory bail is limited to "genuine cases and inapplicable to cases where there is no prima facie case was made out, there will be no protection available to innocent citizens".

Highly-placed sources in the government meanwhile said Attorney General K K Venugopal would mention the case in the top court tomorrow for an early hearing.

Referring to the grounds of the review, they said law making is the right of the legislature.

"A law can be set aside only if it is violative of the fundamental rights, if it is lacking in legislative competence and if it is arbitrary," a source pointed out.

The sources also claimed that the Supreme Court order has the potential to flare up caste divisions.

They said if the law does not have such infirmities, then it is left to the wisdom of the legislature to frame a law depending upon the enormity of the offence to be created.

Referring to Article 17 of the Constitution, they said it abolished untouchability and provides for punishment according to law for those violating it.

The sources also referred to the 1995 judgement of the top court in the R K Bharotia case where denial of bail in such cases was upheld to ensure fear of law.

They said to make the law more effective, tonsuring head and moustache, garlanding a Dalit with slippers brought under the definition of atrocity under the law.

The compensation was enhanced, ranging between Rs 85,000 and Rs 8 lakh.