SC says protests misled, declines to stay its order

REVIEW PLEA Verdict doesn’t dilute Act, protects innocents from misuse: Court

NEWDELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to put in abeyance its judgment banning automatic arrests without prior permissions for offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, saying its March 20 order only meant to safeguard innocent people without affecting the rights of the marginalised communities.

The court, however, said it would consider the arguments against its judgment from all parties involved at the next hearing that will be scheduled sometime after 10 days.

The bench of justices AK Goel and UU Lalit was hearing a review petition filed by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government a day after nine people were killed in violent protests in several parts of the country, prompting leaders of all major political parties to call for an urgent need to reconsider what they described as a “dilution” of the act by the court.

On Tuesday, the court asked for written submissions from all

parties involved and refused intervention by others who were not party to the case that originated in Maharashtra.

Dalits make up 200 million of the country’s 1.3 billion population and are a key demographic group in several states. Dalit leaders said their primary grouse against the court’s verdict was the banning of the automatic arrest of the accused in cases under the Act that is meant to protect the community against discrimination and harassment.

Home minister Rajnath Singh reiterated on Tuesday that the government was “fully committed” to protecting the interests of the SC/ST community and the BJP “stands shoulder to shoulder” with Dalits. Congress president Rahul Gandhi also brought it up in a political rally in Karnataka, accusing Prime Minister Narendra Modi of being silent on the issue.

Permission for an open court hearing was granted after Attorney General KK Venugopal urged the bench that protests had erupted in several states. Review petitions before the Supreme Court are normally decided within chambers by judges and open court hearings are allowed only in extraordinary circumstances.

But the court asked Venugopal and senior advocate Amarendra Sharan — who assisted the bench in delivering the main judgment — not to deviate from legal submissions. “We are not here to take note of what is happening outside the court,” Justice Goel said. “Those who are protesting have probably not even read what we have written. They do not even know. They are being misled by some vested interests,” he remarked. The judges said that the court was not against the Act, but wanted to ensure that innocent people were not punished.