New Delhi: Kerala has joined the Centre in moving the Supreme Court seeking review and recall of the March 20 verdict diluting the provisions of SC/ST Atrocities (Prevention) Act by granting protection from arrest to the accused prior to a preliminary probe. In its petition, filed through advocate G. Prakaksh, seeking review of the verdict, Kerala said the verdict has gone against the provisions of the Atrocities Act and has wide ramifications as the same has created insecurity among SC/ST people. It said when the law is clear no guideline should be issued by the Court.
The state said the apex court has failed to suitably/appropriately appreciate certain facts and settled principles of law. There is an error apparent in the judgment as it goes against the mandate of Parliament and the object of the Act.
It pointed out that while passing the PoA Act, 1989 the Parliament has set out the circumstances surrounding the enactment of the said Act and points to the evil, which the statute said to remedy. The SC/ST are denied number of civil rights. They are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property. Serious crimes are committed against them for various historical, social and economic reasons.
State said granting protection to the accused from arrest and ordering a preliminary enquiry by a senior police officer into any complaint has virtually diluted the provisions and if this judgment were given effect it would be impossible for registration of any FIR against the accused. On anticipatory bail, the State said Section 18 of the PoA Act is the backbone of the Act as it enforces an inherent deterrence and instills sense of protection amongst members of SCs and STs. Any dilution thereof would shake the very objective of mechanism to prevent offences of atrocities.
The judgment of this Court while seeking to protect persons, whose offences would not normally merit denial of anticipatory bail as in the instant case, would, by its uniform application cause miscarriage of justice even in deserving cases. Kerala pointed out that even in the judgment the apex court had expressed concern that contrary to the assertion of any misuse of the 1989 Act, the facts and the data have demonstrated a weak implementation of the said Act.
The court, thereby has endorsed the requirement for a strict interpretation of the deterrent provisions. There is justification for an apprehension that if benefit of anticipatory bail is made available to persons who are alleged to have committed such offences, there is every likelihood of their misusing their liberty while on anticipatory bail to terrorise their victims and to prevent a proper investigation.
