BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today
In his last address to the Constituent Assembly, Dr BR Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Constitution, drew pointed attention to the state of the society and said, “How long shall we deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so labouriously built up.”
He could identify the problem and articulate the solution with clarity as he himself was born in one of the so-called untouchable communities, officially designated as the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Members of these communities prefer to be known as Dalits (meaning broken people) and Adivasis (earliest inhabitants). He overcame the disabilities of birth by sheer dint of effort.
Dispossessed and driven to the outbacks or the forests as the Vedic Aryans enforced the caste system, most members of these communities lived in virtual slavery, bereft of human rights.
The Constitution banned untouchability and granted Dalits and Adivasis equal rights with other citizens. However, entrenched prejudices, especially of officials, including police personnel, have effectively denied them the promised equality.
The Census of 2011 put the population of Dalits at 16.2 per cent and that of Adivasis at 8.2 per cent. Continuing social and economic disabilities and organisational weakness have prevented these communities, which account for nearly a quarter of the population, from claiming their due place in the polity.
In the feudal and colonial period, the numerically small Brahmin community, which was at the pinnacle of the caste hierarchy, was their main tormentor. Under the democratic dispensation the numerically strong middle-rung castes, which are now designated Other Backward Classes, have acquired power in many states and pose a greater threat to them than the Brahmins.
Taking note of the rising incidence of attacks on Dalits and Adivasis, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi enacted in 1989 the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act with some tough provisions. For more than five years it remained a dead letter as successive governments failed to frame rules under it.
The Act listed a series of offences, declared them non-bailable and made it mandatory for the police to register a first information report and arrest the alleged offender on receipt of a complaint from a Dalit or an Adivasi. The normal procedure of holding a preliminary inquiry before arrest was dispensed with in view of the police’s propensity to act in the interests of members of so-called higher castes.
A few years earlier, Parliament had introduced a similar provision in the Indian Penal Code section dealing with dowry death, taking into account the predominantly male police force’s gender bias.
Last year a Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit struck down the provision for mandatory arrest in dowry death cases on the ground that it was being misused. A bench presided over by Chief Justce Dipak Misra later overturned that decision.
The legal validity of the SC, ST Atrocities Act was challenged at least on three occasions in the last two decades and each time the Supreme Court upheld it. Last Match, ignoring these precedents, Justices Goel and Lalit struck down the mandatory arrest provision, citing misuse. They also ruled that if the alleged offender is an official he should be arrested only after obtaining the permission of his superior.
The changes the two judges made in the law diluted the provisions Parliament had put in to protect the interests of the weaker party and made it easy for a biased police and bureaucracy to help the offender.
On the face of it, throwing out a legal provision on the ground of misuse betrays an unsound approach. The proper remedy for misuse is to penalise those who make false allegations, for which adequate provisions exist in the law.
The dilution of the Atrocities Act led to angry protests by Dalits in many parts of the country. Human rights defenders pointed out that instances of false complaints are not large enough to justify the scrapping of a salutary provision of the law. The more alarming fact revealed by the official data is that while offences against SCs and STs are increasing the rate of successful prosecution is falling. Therefore, the need of the hour is to strengthen the law, not weaken it.
A government petition seeking review of the judgment is now before Justices Goel and Lalit. What is on trial is the justice system itself. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, May 8, 2018
Gulf Today
What distinguishes India”s Constitution from those of other democratic countries is the primacy it accords to justice –social, economic and political, listed in that order in its preamble.
In his last address to the Constituent Assembly, Dr BR Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Constitution, drew pointed attention to the state of the society and said, “How long shall we deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so labouriously built up.”
He could identify the problem and articulate the solution with clarity as he himself was born in one of the so-called untouchable communities, officially designated as the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Members of these communities prefer to be known as Dalits (meaning broken people) and Adivasis (earliest inhabitants). He overcame the disabilities of birth by sheer dint of effort.
Dispossessed and driven to the outbacks or the forests as the Vedic Aryans enforced the caste system, most members of these communities lived in virtual slavery, bereft of human rights.
The Constitution banned untouchability and granted Dalits and Adivasis equal rights with other citizens. However, entrenched prejudices, especially of officials, including police personnel, have effectively denied them the promised equality.
The Census of 2011 put the population of Dalits at 16.2 per cent and that of Adivasis at 8.2 per cent. Continuing social and economic disabilities and organisational weakness have prevented these communities, which account for nearly a quarter of the population, from claiming their due place in the polity.
In the feudal and colonial period, the numerically small Brahmin community, which was at the pinnacle of the caste hierarchy, was their main tormentor. Under the democratic dispensation the numerically strong middle-rung castes, which are now designated Other Backward Classes, have acquired power in many states and pose a greater threat to them than the Brahmins.
Taking note of the rising incidence of attacks on Dalits and Adivasis, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi enacted in 1989 the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act with some tough provisions. For more than five years it remained a dead letter as successive governments failed to frame rules under it.
The Act listed a series of offences, declared them non-bailable and made it mandatory for the police to register a first information report and arrest the alleged offender on receipt of a complaint from a Dalit or an Adivasi. The normal procedure of holding a preliminary inquiry before arrest was dispensed with in view of the police’s propensity to act in the interests of members of so-called higher castes.
A few years earlier, Parliament had introduced a similar provision in the Indian Penal Code section dealing with dowry death, taking into account the predominantly male police force’s gender bias.
Last year a Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit struck down the provision for mandatory arrest in dowry death cases on the ground that it was being misused. A bench presided over by Chief Justce Dipak Misra later overturned that decision.
The legal validity of the SC, ST Atrocities Act was challenged at least on three occasions in the last two decades and each time the Supreme Court upheld it. Last Match, ignoring these precedents, Justices Goel and Lalit struck down the mandatory arrest provision, citing misuse. They also ruled that if the alleged offender is an official he should be arrested only after obtaining the permission of his superior.
The changes the two judges made in the law diluted the provisions Parliament had put in to protect the interests of the weaker party and made it easy for a biased police and bureaucracy to help the offender.
On the face of it, throwing out a legal provision on the ground of misuse betrays an unsound approach. The proper remedy for misuse is to penalise those who make false allegations, for which adequate provisions exist in the law.
The dilution of the Atrocities Act led to angry protests by Dalits in many parts of the country. Human rights defenders pointed out that instances of false complaints are not large enough to justify the scrapping of a salutary provision of the law. The more alarming fact revealed by the official data is that while offences against SCs and STs are increasing the rate of successful prosecution is falling. Therefore, the need of the hour is to strengthen the law, not weaken it.
A government petition seeking review of the judgment is now before Justices Goel and Lalit. What is on trial is the justice system itself. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, May 8, 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment