Supreme Court rejects Centre’s plea to stay its verdict on SC/ST Act

The Supreme Court also strongly disagreed with the Centre’s contention that its March 20 verdict had led to loss of lives in the violence that had broken out later in several states.

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to stay the operation of its March 20 order that stopped automatic arrests in cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and said the verdict “did not ask anyone to commit any crime”.

The Centre had moved the Supreme Court on April 2 seeking review of its judgement by which safeguards were put on the provisions for immediate arrest under the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (AP File Photo)

Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit made the remark when attorney general KK Venugopal referred to the violent protests against the SC order.

“Our judgment did not incite anyone to commit crimes. The SC/ST community has full protection of this court. Why can’t authorities take action, wherever crimes take place? There should be a system of immediate punishment. Communities should learn to respect each other,” Justice Lalit said.

The judges reiterated that they never stopped police from registering cases and in its last order it was clarified that the direction will not affect other offences such as rape and murder.

Venugopal opened his arguments by saying that the March 20 verdict was in the nature of a law. “For the last four decades, the court has believed that it has the power of legislature... Your lordships cannot declare that a law in the country will be like this in contrast to existing law,” the AG submitted.

Section18 of the Act mandates that no anticipatory bail shall be given to an accused under the of- fence. But the SC ruled that there shall be no bar on grant of anticipatory bail as otherwise it would violate a citizen’s fundamental right to life and liberty. Centre has filed a petition in the court asking it to reconsider the order.

But the bench disagreed and told Venugopal there were inst-ances where judicial pronouncements in the past had settled the law. “We want to make it clear that we are also for the protection of these sections,” the bench said.

The AG stressed on stringent provisions of the Act for the protection of the SCs/STs. He said re- cently three incidents were rep-orted where Dalit grooms were stopped from using horses.

The bench said such incidents can be stopped with quicker punishments. “For that you need to deliver immediate punishment...Why can’t you punish in a month or so?” Justice Goel asked. To this, the AG said speedy disposal of a criminal case was difficult given the size of country’s population. “There lies the problem,” Justice Goel replied.

Venugopal asked the bench to refer the case to a larger bench for a review of the March 20 order. The court did not grant a stay and fixed May 16 for next hearing.