In a landmark judgment, a three-judge bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that the scope of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be limited to the parent state where a person is declared as being part of the scheduled caste or schedule tribe (SC/ST). The purpose of enacting the legislation would be defeated if that's not the case, the court remarked.
A full bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere, Bharati Dangre and NJ Jamadar on Friday said the SC/ST Act was enacted to remove humiliation and harassment meted out to members of a class and to ensure them fundamental, socio-economic and political rights. In a detailed 78-page judgment, the HC said, “... he is also entitled protection under the Act, in any other part of the country, where the offence is committed, though he is not recognised as SC/ST there,” the bench said.
Constitution of the three-judge bench and key observations
The three-judge bench was constituted after a single judge bench of Justice Sarag Kotwal referred the matter for consideration following different interpretations by different benches. The issue came for consideration while hearing petitions filed by accused seeking quashing of cases filed against them under the Act on the ground that the caste/ tribe of the complainant was not notified as SC/ST in Maharashtra. The judges remarked that the tradition-bound caste system intricately had within its embryo the institution of untouchability, which divided the Hindus and deeply imprinted in their mind the suppression and enslavement of humanity. The intention of the Act was to deter crimes committed against a class.
.jpg)
“It is not possible for the person to get rid of the baggage of his or her caste though he or she may come out of the occupational grouping or from the social status of that particular caste and become socially and economically forward surpassing his peers in the caste,” it said.
Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, appearing for some of the petitioners, argued that the offence under the Act would not be attracted if the complainant had migrated from his/ her parent state. Advocate General Birendra Saraf averred, "If the restrictive interpretation is given to the provisions of the Atrocities Act, by restricting the geographical and territorial limits, the purpose of the enactment itself would be defeated."
Restricting identity to the state of origin will defeat the fundamental rights
The bench said that restricting the identity of a SC/ST to the state of origin will defeat the fundamental rights as it will then bind the person to their state of origin with no chance to progress themselves by stepping outside.
The full bench has also held that all appeals filed under the SC/ST Act, irrespective of the punishment, shall lie within the jurisdiction of the single bench of the high court.
