‘Scope of Atrocities Act not limited to SC, STs from origin state; entitled protection across India’

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) cannot be limited to a particular state or union territory. The ruling came in response to a case where a man argued that the act did not apply to his wife as she belonged to a scheduled tribe in a different state. The court rejected this argument, stating that the act is meant to protect the human dignity of all members of SC and ST communities regardless of their location.

MUMBAI: A three-judge bench of the Bombay high court (HC) on Friday held that the scope of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) cannot be restricted only to a person from the state or Union Territory in which they are declared as a member of SC or ST community.

HT Image

The bench comprising justice Revati Mohite-Dere, justice Bharati Dangre and justice NJ Jamadar said the Atrocities Act is meant to protect the human dignity of the members of the SC, ST and cannot be given a restricted or constricted meaning, confining their status only to a particular State.

The three-judge bench on Friday decided on a reference made by a single judge bench of justice Sarang Kotwal, while hearing the anticipatory bail plea of Kharghar resident Mukul Goyal, who was booked by the local police for allegedly harassing his wife, Naina Rawat. Apart from the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, the police also booked Goyal under relevant sections of the Atrocities Act.

Goyal argued before the single judge bench that the sections of the Atrocities Act could not have been invoked against him at the behest of his wife, as the woman belonged to a community that was recognised as a Scheduled Tribe only in Uttarakhand and nowhere else, and therefore in Maharashtra she was not entitled to invoke provisions of the Atrocities Act.

Justice Kotwal had referred the issue to a larger bench for consideration, considering the wider impact of the possible decision and accordingly, the matter was placed along with two other similar matters before the three-judge bench.

The larger bench on Friday rejected the contention of Goyal’s counsel, Dr Abhinav Chandrachud, that the Constitution makers have assigned specific meaning to the terms, “Scheduled Caste” and “Scheduled Tribe” and have also clarified that they shall be so recognized “in relation to that State or Union Territory” to which they belong.

He submitted that the law of interpretation requires penal statutes must be construed narrowly and if two possible constructions can be placed upon a penal provision, the Court must lean in favour of that construction which exempts the subject from penalty, and therefore, the Atrocities Act shall be reasonably construed, as applicable only to the SCs and STs within the state of origin – where they are recognised as such, and not in any other State to which they might migrate.

The three-judge bench rejected the argument, saying if this proposition is accepted, it would mean that once a person belonging to this class steps out of the boundary of his State and undergoes indignity, humiliation, and harassment on account of his caste, he will have no protection under the 1989 Act.

“A legislation framed for combating crimes of a social nature deserve an interpretation, which is consistent with the history, object and scheme of a statute and the provisions shall be construed in a manner, which would advance the intention of the legislature and in the manner, which will suppress the mischief,” said the bench. “We would be committing serious flaw in adopting too narrow and pedantic construction, which would stultify the intent of a special law and impede its implementation,” it added.