SC declines stay on verdict

NOT WHAT AMBEDKAR ENVISIONED: The statue of Bhimrao Ambedkar at Parliament on Tuesday.  
Picture by Prem Singh

TT, New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to stay its March 20 judgment allowing anticipatory bail to those accused of committing offences under the SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and barring immediate arrest of a person on a complaint.

A bench of Justices Adarsh Goel and U.U. Lalit prima facie felt that there was nothing wrong in the verdict, which has sparked violent protests across the country, but assured it was open to "consider" the plea for recall made by the Centre and some interveners who were party to the impugned judgment.

"There should not be any terror of the innocent. We don't want to deprive anyone of his liberty. We only don't want innocent people punished. If he is innocent don't arrest him. If he is not innocent then arrest him," Justice Goel, heading the bench, observed.

The court clarified that it had not diluted the Act as is being widely interpreted.

The top court also indicated that it would not be cowed down by the violent protests, which it said was being orchestrated and carried out by vested interests who had not read the judgment.

"Agitations are by people who have not read the judgment. We are not taking cognisance of what is happening outside the court," the bench said when attorney-general K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, referred to the violence on Monday.

The court repeatedly asserted that it only wanted to protect the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed to all citizens under Article 21.

The bench was dealing with a review petition filed by the Centre and conducted the proceedings in an open court, instead of the normal practice of dealing with such pleas within the closed chambers of judges.

The review petition was heard by the two judges who had passed the March 20 judgment.

The court said on Tuesday that it had clearly indicated in the judgment that senior police officers of the rank of SP/deputy SP who examine the genuineness of complaints under the Act must complete the preliminary inquiry within seven days, which was the outer limit, but that such officers were free to conclude the inquiry even within 15 minutes.

"It can be done in one hour and even 15 minutes," the bench remarked.

The apex court further clarified that while there can be no immediate arrest of a person upon a complaint, under the Act the complainant is entitled to monetary compensation.

The court also said that an accused who is simultaneously charged under other provisions like the IPC for say murder can be arrested and the embargo imposed by it under the Prevention of Atrocities Act would not apply.

During the 90 minute arguments, the attorney-general said the judgment should be recalled as SCs and STs continued to face atrocities.

But Justice Goel said: "In a case where there is no scope for verification (of the genuineness of a complaint) there is no anticipatory bail, where there is no forum. Some independent inquiry must be there."

The attorney-general argued that the Prevention of Atrocities Act had special provisions intended to protect SCs and STs.

"Without proper verification a person can't be put behind bars," the bench said.

The attorney-general argued that even the seven-day period for inquiry was unreasonable.

Justice Goel said "because in all other cases there is a forum. In this case one allegation and a man may be put behind bars. Some protection should be available for innocent persons."

The attorney-general said there were reports that SC and STs continued to face atrocities.

The court asserted that it was equally concerned that innocent persons were not put behind bars in false and fabricated cases.

"Our duty is to enforce the Constitution, which includes the right of the underprivileged which stand on a higher footing. We are conscious of that right. We are also conscious of the right of liberty of a person," the court said.

"Can an innocent person's liberty be taken away and (he) arrested without due process of law?.... The Act does not say implicate innocent persons falsely," the court added.

Venugopal said: "So far as this class of persons (SC and STs) is concerned, the special law has been enacted because these persons have been subjected to tremendous prejudice and atrocities."

The attorney-general said the number of innocent persons falsely implicated was very low compared to the cases of atrocities actually committed.

He admitted that in the present case the superior officer who had come for anticipatory bail had been falsely implicated.

The AG also referred to the instance of former Calcutta High Court judge C.S. Karnan as examples of the SC, ST Act being abused.

Justice Karnan was sentenced to six months' imprisonment by the apex court last year for accusing judges of Madras High Court and the Supreme Court of corruption. He had alleged that he was being harassed since he was a Dalit.

But such isolated incidents cannot be a reason for diluting the Act, he argued.

Venugopal referred to the violence unleashed in the country on account of the March 20 judgment.

"People who are agitating may not have read the order. People are perhaps being instigated by vested interests," Justice Goel remarked.

When the court said Article 21 was available to every citizen, the attorney-general said even SC and STs were entitled to the protection of Article 21 and they had the right to lodge a complaint.

The bench said it had not interfered with the Act but merely interpreted it in the context of Section 41 of the CrPC dealing with the provision for arrest of a person only upon proper consideration of a case.

"We are only giving effect to the law, not adding a new law," Justice Goel said.

"We will consider your case. We are prepared to hear you at length. We don't want to create any chaos," the bench said while adjourning the matter by 10 days.

By that time the court had said the Centre and the other parties to the case could file their written submissions, but maintained that it would not entertain any other fresh intervention application.