Criminology
Social Legislations and Crime
The SC and ST Prevention of Atrocities Act
1
Quadrant I- Description of the Module
Subject Name
Paper Name
Module Name/Title
Module Id
Pre-requisites
Description of Module
Criminology
Social Legislations and Crime
The SC and ST Prevention of Atrocities Act
21
A basic understanding of the hierarchical
caste system in India and the practice of
untouchability. A basic knowledge in
fundamental
rights
as
guaranteed
in
Constitution of India.
Objectives
To understand how widely ‘Untouchability’
has been in practice in India.
To understand the wide scope of the term
‘atrocity’.
To appreciate the efforts undertaken by the
lawmakers to find solution to prevent
atrocities committed on the SCs/STs.
To realize the reasons for the failure of the
existing laws in eradicating the curse of
atrocities on the SCs/STs.
To understand the salient features of the
Prevent of Atrocities Act, 1989
To understand the changes brought about in
the law by the Prevention of Atrocities
Amending Act of 2015
Key Words
Untouchability; Dalits; Scheduled Caste;
Scheduled Tribe; Atrocity; Compensation
Quadrant- II- E-Text
Introduction
India is a country where a large number of people are found to be illiterate, ignorant, poor,
backward, and adding to this it is also known for social stratification that exists because of caste
system. More often this backwardness is directly connected with the type of stratification based on
caste. India has a large population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, suffering from socioeconomic inequalities. (Pati & Dash, 2002, p. 89) Almost one sixth of India’s population live in the
society where they are shunned because they are known as untouchables or Dalits, which literally
2
means “broken” people, occupying the lowest status in India’s caste system. (Smita Narula 1999: 2)
Untouchability is a direct product of the caste system. According to Dr. D.N. Majumdar, the
untouchables suffer from both socio-political disabilities, enforced by the people of higher castes. The
scheduled castes occupy the bottom most rung of the social ladder, and they form the majority of the
“backward” or depressed class. They comprise the bulk of “untouchables”, and have been
discriminated against by the superior castes, while being denied any kind of social acceptance from
the majority of the people who belonged to the upper class. Around hundred and forty types of
descent and work based discriminations are meted out by the higher castes in the name of
untouchability. (Brochure, National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights)
To ensure their all-round development and to protect them from all form of exploitations, and
atrocities a number of safeguards have been provided under the Constitution of India. Many laws
were enacted with the purpose of ameliorating their life with the purpose of eradicating such
practices. These laws include Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (UOA), changed to The Protection
of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (PCRA) in 1976, and The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (POA), which went through changes made by The Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. In addition to
these laws there has been significant contribution of the judiciary in enriching the jurisprudence
related to the laws on preventing discrimination on the SC’s and ST’s.
Before independence, the British rule had a mixed impact on the different ethnic groups in the
country. (Pati & Dash, 2002, p. 89) Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes were kept under strict
surveillance either by village servants or constabulary supervisors. Surveys done in the British era
reviewing the implementation of the Government of India Act, came to the conclusion that atrocities
done on the Dalits went unpunished because of lack of witnesses who would give evidence. (National
Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, 2010, p. 2) While speaking about Swaraj, M.K. Gandhi had said,
“that there can be no Swaraj without the removal of the curse (of untouchability) from our midst.”
(Gandhi, 1954, p.10)
Even Dr. B. R. Ambedkar while speaking for ‘Bahishkrita Hitakarini Sabha’ in 1928 cited drew
attention to atrocities meted out on Dalits while making his submissions before the Indian Statutory
Commission. (National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, 2010, p. 2). The atrocities on the Dalits did
not change much even in the post-independence era, when finally in 1987 the Indian Government
announced that a legislation would be brought into force for prohibiting atrocities on SC’s and ST’S.
Constitutional Safeguards:
3
The Constituent Assembly found that a large number of people suffered from socio-economiceducational backwardness, as they have been denied basic rights for centuries together. (National
Human Rights Commission, 2004, p.9) The chapter titled “Special provisions relating to certain
classes” in Part-XVI of the Constitution; special provisions for the SC’s and ST’s in Part-X of the
Constitution; and provisions in Parts III, IV, IX, IX- A, Fifth and Sixth Schedule of the Constitution
tries to remove disparities of all kinds and bring them on par with other sections of the society .
The concept of social justice is enshrined in the Indian constitution, as reflected in its Preamble
and other provisions. Article 15 guarantees lays down that no citizen shall be subjected to any
disability or restriction on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. (National Crime
Records Bureau, 2014, p.107) The Constitution guarantees very citizen equality of status and
opportunity. Under the chapter of Directive Principles of State Policy, Article 46 requires State to
strive towards uplifting the weaker sections of the society, especially the SCs & STs, by protecting
them from all forms of injustice and exploitation. The constitution of India makes a provision for the
abolition of untouchability a social evil which has been in practice in this country since time
immemorial. Article 17 abolishes untouchability while its practice in any form is prohibited.
Social Justice under
Indian constitution is
reflected in the
Preamble
Article 15 guarantees that
no citizen shall be
subjected to any disability
or restriction on the caste.
Article 17 abolishes
untouchability
Article 46 requires State to
strive towards uplifting the
weaker sections of the
society, especially the SCs
& STs
In fulfilment of the objective under Article 17, Parliament enacted the Untouchability (Offences) Act,
1955. It made several discriminatory practices punishable as offences, although the punishment
provided were rather mild and in their actual application even milder. After amendment the Act came
to be known as the Protection of Civil Rights Act. However, the menace of untouchability continued
and ‘Dalits’ were still being treated in a discriminatory way. To counter these atrocities meted out to
‘Dalits’, the Parliament enacted ‘Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989. Constitution has abolished untouchability in all its forms including both horizontal and
vertical forms. However the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 is subjective to both perpetrator and victim of an atrocity, and has failed to take into
account the possibility that higher-caste Dalits would practice untouchability on lower-caste Dalits.
4
Magnitude of Atrocity:
The term ‘Atrocity’ denotes an act of extreme cruelty. In Webster's Third International Dictionary
(at page 139), one of the meaning ascribed to word ‘atrocity’ is “the quality or state of being
atrocious” while the word ‘atrocious’ has been ascribed, inter alia, the following meanings: “(1)
marked by or given to extreme wickedness; (2) marked by or given to extreme brutality or cruelty; (3)
outrageous; violating the bounds of common decency; uncivilized, barbaric; (4) extremely painful;
marked by intense distress; (5) of such a kind as to fill with fright or dismay.” (Jai Singh and Anr. v.
UOI And Ors, 1993). In absence of any definite meaning of ‘atrocity’ in laws, the Ministry of Home
Affairs has clarified the word ‘atrocity’ to mean crimes under Indian Penal Code perpetrated against
the SCs by non-Scheduled castes person. (T. R. Naval 2001:38) Atrocity mainly denotes grave
offences like murder, rape, arson, and violence resulting in grievous hurt. These offences are
considered serious offences as atrocity, because mens rea regarding caste is an important factor. (T. R.
Naval 2001:38) Atrocities of such kind have long-lasting effects on the victim which result into
deterioration of physical, mental, educational, social, economical and psychological status. (T. R.
Naval 2001:39-43) It is significant to note the data brought to us by the NCRB, as it states: “A total of
47,064 cases of crime committed against SCs were reported in the year 2014 as compared to 39,408
cases reported in 2013. Out of the reported cases in 2014, in 40,300 cases various section of IPC along
with the SC/ST (POA) Act (atrocities cases i.e. where SC/ST (POA) Act applied).” (National Crime
Records Bureau, 2014, p. 108) The NCRB also states that, “A total of 11,451 cases of crimes
committed on persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes were reported in the country during 2014
against 6,793 cases reported in 2013, indicating a substantial increase of 68.6% during 2014 as
compared to 2013. Out of 11,451 cases of crime against STs, in 6,826 cases provisions of IPC along
with the SC/ST (POA) Act were applied.” (National Crime Records Bureau, 2014, p. 112) As per the
NCRB data almost 6,826 cases of atrocities against STs were reported in 2014. The conviction rate is
37.9%and 28.8% about crimes done against STs and SCs respectively. While the pendency rate is a
staggering 82.8% and 85.3% under crimes against STs and SCs respectively reported in 2014. It is
quite clear by the data that atrocities are still committed in large numbers and the main reason is caste
and caste system. These crimes have mostly occurred in Bihar, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya
Pradesh, and Odisha. (National Crime Records Bureau, 2014, p. 107-115)
Developments prior to 2015 Act:
India has taken up several measures to eliminate the practice of untouchability by enacting
Untouchability Offences Act 1955, which is known as the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1976.
Parliament thereafter enacted the SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989 after a further 13-year gap. In 1995 the
Parliament brought into force the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
5
Atrocities) Rules, 1995. The central government and the state governments have set up National
Commissions for the SC/STs under the Constitution of India; State Commissions for SC/ST; and
legislations like Karnataka SC/ST Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act (1978), etc.
Laws to eliminate
practice of
Untouchability
Untouchability Offences
Act 1955; which was
amended to as Protection
of Civil Rights Act 1976
The Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989
The Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015
Salient Features of POA, 1989:
While establishing the significance of this Act, the Supreme Court of India in State of Madhya
Pradesh and Anr v. Ram Krishna Balothia and Anr, 1995, had observed that the atrocities are meted
out to the SCs and STs principally to keep them in a state of servitude, which makes them a special
class of offences when compared to the crimes under IPC. The National Human Rights Commission
in its report stated categorically that: “The objective of the 1989 Act, therefore very clearly emphasize
the intention of the Indian state to deliver justice to SC/ST communities through affirmative action in
order to enable them to live with dignity and self-esteem and without fear, violence or suppression
from the dominant castes.” (NHRC, 2002, pp.14-15) The Act, defines the term ‘atrocity’ to include
different ways the SCs and STs have been humiliated and oppressed for centuries. The statute makes
provisions for severe punishment, compensation mechanisms or the victims, and also mechanisms to
prevent such crimes.
‘Atrocity’ was not defined in the Act; however the meaning emerges by implication, i.e. by
specifying various offences. The GoI has explained the word ‘atrocity’ to include offences as defined
under IPC, when committed against SCs and STs by non-SCs and STs. Under the statute caste as a
motive is not necessary to comprise an offence under the Act. As Naval mentions significantly that
“Where the victims of crime are members of scheduled castes and the offenders do not belong to
scheduled caste, caste considerations are really the root cause of the crime, even though caste
considerations may not be the vivid and minimum motive for the crime”. (T. R. Naval 2001:38) The
POA Act, 1989 had the following features, like:
6
 S. 3 created new types of offences which do not find mention in IPC and Protection of Civil Rights
Act, 1955.
 S.3 relied on caste identification of both offender and victim.
 S.3 provides protection to SCs and STs from different kinds of atrocities which affect them in
multiple ways like, exploiting them politically, economically, by malicious prosecutions, etc.
 Under S. 14 and S.15 Special Courts have powers to try offences and the trials can be conducted
by appointing Special Public Prosecutors.
 The Act includes measures like, banishing potential offenders from SC and ST areas under Section
10 and 11; attaching properties owned by individuals accused under the Act. (The POA Act 1989,
s. 7); prohibits potential accused from being granted anticipatory bail and places restrictive
measures from being granted probation to any convict under the Act. (The POA Act 1989, s. 18).

Provided higher penalty for the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or
more under IPC, reflecting the deterrent aspect of the Act (The POA Act 1989, s. 3[2][v]).

S.8 provides for presumption against the accused if found to have given financial help; or if any
group of persons committed an offence as a follow-up to any existing/ continuing disagreement in
respect of land or any other matter.

Public servants were made liable to higher minimum punishments (The POA Act 1989, s.
3[2][vii]), and also made neglecting duties liable for punishment (The POA Act 1989, s. 4).

The Act also addresses issue of compensation to the victims and their legal heirs. The
compensation under the Act was in addition to the relief made available to the victim (Rule 12 and
15; Annexure 1 of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules,
1995).

The Act also provided for preventative mechanisms (The POA Act 1989, s. 9[2]), like preparing
model contingency plan; identifying atrocity prone areas (The POA Act 1989, s. 21[2][vii]);
cancellation of arm licenses; giving arms licenses to SCs/ STs for self-defence; organizing
awareness camps to educate SCs/STs about their rights.
Dr. Naval classifies Indian criminal legislations in three models, like: “(1) provisions found in
Constitution, (2) Mild Crime Model (3) Hard Crime Model.” (Naval, 2001, p.69) Dr. Naval further
explains that the 1989 Act is based on a ‘Hard Crime Model’ with a view to prevent atrocities on
SCs. (Naval, 2001, p. 69-71)
In spite of all the right intentions, the Act was unable to address the atrocities done against the
SCs/ STs. Time and again the NGOs have complained of under-reporting of crimes against SCs/ STs.
The reasons for under-reporting can be listed as follows:

Victims are usually weak to lodge complaint against dominant caste, rich offenders;

Tremendous local pressures applied to work out compromises, before registration of the case;
7

Police officers being reluctant to register cases;

Police officers failing to register cases because of caste biasness and corruption;

Police officers working under pressure to keep reported crimes rates low within their
jurisdiction;

Police officers deliberately conducting investigations in slow pace, which eventually leads to
low rate of conviction;

SCs/STs not being adequately aware of the provisions of the law; (Committee of Governors,
p. 68) (National Human Rights Commission, 2002, p.33)
Judicial Contribution:
In Jai Singh and Anr. v. UOI And Ors (1993), a Full Bench considered if POA, 1989 is ultra vires
the Constitution of India. It dismissed the writ petition, saying that the 1989 Act was passed in order
to give effect to Article 17 of the Constitution and therefore it was of no importance to look if the Act
fulfilled the object of Article 15 of the Constitution. It went on to say that the present Act is a
legislation falling within the purview Article 17 of the Constitution. It is self-operating for anybody
indulging in any of the activities committing offence which could be considered as untouchability
would be liable to be punished. Further to see that S. 18 of the 1989 Act is not abused, the court
suggested safeguards like final orders be made after notice to the public prosecutor; initial order must
be interim in nature. The court also said that directions can be issued after recording reasons, and only
upon satisfaction of the court that passing of such direction would further the cause of justice. (Jai
Singh and Anr. v. UOI And Ors, 1993, para. 40)
The apex court in State of M.P. and Another v. Ram Kishan Balothia, (1995), reversed the
decision rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, and upheld S. 18 as constitutionally valid. It
also held that S. 18 was in conformity of the standards under Article 14 and 21 since the Act provides
for a distinct class of offences. It then went on to explain about how the offences constitute a separate
class, which are done with the motive to vilify SCs and STs in the society, humiliate, and subjugate
them till they give in to the living a life in a state of servitude. This ratio decidendi has been applied in
many cases like Dr. N.T. Desai v. State Of Gujarat (1997), where the court said “….in a given case,
where there is a possibility of abuse of the said Act getting the accused schemingly arrested on
apparently false, vexatious allegation of having perpetrated a non-bailable offence, it is to be weighed
in a golden scale and then taking a tentative comparative view when the conscience of the Court feels
satisfied that the liberty of the accused before it deserves to be given its due and the highest
importance, it shall see to it that it stands by.” The court also felt that it is required to do justice, by
not treating the petitioner mechanically, and unnecessarily victimizing him on the basis of apparently
some doubtful, reckless allegations made in the complaint against him and at the same time, in the
second instance, also protect the vital interest of the complainant by not quashing the complaint, the
8
same being under the Atrocity Act, so as to test out his ultimate credibility on the anvil of the regular
trial proceedings before the learned Magistrate. In Prem Shameer v. The State of Kerala as decided
on 1 November, 2010, the court, while refusing to grant anticipatory bail, subscribed to the Ram
Kishan case and said that, the court is to determine if prima facie the elements of the offence is made
out against the accused.
In Mukesh Kumar Saini and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration) (2001), the court held that offence
under S.3 (1) (x) comprises of the following ingredients, (a) there must be intention to humiliate; and
(b) such humiliation must have been done in public view. Thus it is abundantly clear that mens rea is
an essential ingredient to constitute the offence. It also follows that the accused must have had the
knowledge that victim is an SC or ST. However mere calling an individual by his/her caste will not
attract the provisions of this Act. General statement that all the accused persons said supposedly
humiliating words is not enough to constitute an offence under the said Section. In Sajjan Kumar v.
The State and Anr. 132 (2006), the court held that the provisions of Section 438 of the Code are
applicable and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners therein. The court interpreted the phrase
‘public view’ in S. 3 (1) (x) to mean the presence of public persons, even if small in number. Such
persons must be free from bias towards any of the parties.
However, the implementation of the Act has largely remained tardy and SCs and STs have not
been able to derive full benefits available under the Act.
Developments prior to amending POA, 1989:
The SC/ST POA, 1989 proved to be pioneering in many ways. However its exhaustive structure
proved to be feeble and could not be effective in practice. The Sixth Report of the National
Commission for SCs and STs (1999-2000 and 2000-2001) had expressed deep sense of dissatisfaction
in the manner all these measures were implemented. The council for social justice through its study of
400 judgements under POA 1989 finds that careless police investigation coupled with unfriendly role
played by the public prosecutors is one of the prime reasons for acquittal in cases under the Act. It is
the complicit Sate which has made the Act toothless. The ‘Report on Prevention of Atrocities against
SCs (2004)’ prepared by NHRC opines that civil society is distinct beneficiary of the caste-based
order and it facilitates perpetuating the existing unequal social reactions. To strengthen the Act, in
2014 the government came up with the ‘The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014. The objective of the amendments in the POA 1989 made
by the Ordinance was to deliver greater justice to members of SC and ST communities, and an
enhanced deterrent to the offenders.
After the passing of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Bill, 2015 by the Lower House on August 04, 2015 and Upper House of the Parliament
on December 21, 2015, to make amendments in the Act, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
9
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, as assented by the President on December
31, 2015, was notified in the Gazette of India Extraordinary on January 01, 2016. It is in force with
effect from January 26, 2016. On 14th April, 2016, the ‘Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Rules, 2016’ was notified.
Salient Features of the POA, 2015:
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015
(POA,2015) has amended the POA, 1989 in many ways with the object of speeding of justice delivery
mechanism, ease up and expedite victims access to relief from atrocities, ensuring special sensitivity
in cases of offences against women. The 2015 amending act has retained the provisions of POA 1989
while bringing in some significant changes in matters of introducing new definitions; expanding the
list of offences of atrocities; provision related to punishment; restructured the administrative layout;
and introducing a new chapter related to victims and witnesses rights. The salient features POA, 2015
are discussed as follows:
a.
Definitions:
The POA, 2015 has defined many new terms in section 2, which are required to understand the
other amendments in right context. The amended S. 2 defines terms like “dependent”; “economic
boycott” and “social boycott”; “victim”; “witness”. The term “dependent” would mean the family
members like spouse, children, parents, siblings of the victim, dependent on the victim. (The POA Act
2015, s. 2[i][bb]). The concept of boycott has been given clarity by defining the kinds of act which
will comprise it. “Economic boycott” means refusal to deal with SCs/STs in matters of hiring or
business; denying opportunities like access to services or contractual opportunities; refusing to
conduct as is commonly done in the ordinary course of business; abstain from professional/ business
relations (The POA Act 2015, s. 2[i][bc]). “Social boycott” means refusing a SC/ ST member to render
or accept from them customary services; even abstaining from societal dealings which is usually
maintained with others; and isolate them from others (The POA Act 2015, s. 2[ii][eb]).
The term
“victim” has been given a broad meaning including the immediate victims’ relatives, legal guardian
and legal heirs. The victim could be a SC/ST and someone who has suffered from different kinds of
harm including, mental, physical, etc ; or his/her possessions has suffered the harm (The POA Act
2015, s. 2[ii][ec]). The term “witness” has been defined under S.2 in the following words:" any person
who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances, or is in possession of any information or has
knowledge necessary for the purpose of investigation, inquiry or trial of any crime involving an
offence under this Act, and who is or may be required to give information or make a statement or
produce any document during investigation, inquiry or trial of such case and includes a victim of such
offence."( The POA Act 2015, s. 2[ii][ed])). Terms like “forest rights”, “manual scavengers” also find
10
a place in the definition as violations under the respective laws would also be considered as an offence
of atrocity under the amended S.3 of the POA, 2015. (The POA Act 2015, s. 2 [i] [be] & [bf]).
b. Offences of Atrocities:
Under the POA, 2015 S. 3 [1] has been wholly amended to make it more detailed about the
elements of offences of atrocities. S.3 of the statute lists out the different kinds of atrocities. As per
S.3 the perpetrator of the atrocity must not be a member of the SC/ST community. The atrocities
cover a wide range of acts touching every aspect of life. Such atrocities are still reported widely in
India, and they have found a place in the amended statute. The atrocities touch upon their land rights,
human dignity, etc. The atrocities can be done forcefully, intentionally, or even wrongfully. Acts of
atrocity are considered to be done ‘wrongfully’, when it is done against the persons will; without the
consent; or where the consent is compromised by putting the person under some threat, and by
fabrication of land records. (The POA Act 2015, s. 3[f]) The victim must be a member of either
SC/ST community. Forcing a member of SC/ST community to drink or eat substances which are
inedible or obnoxious is an atrocity under the act. (The POA Act 2015, s. 3[1][a]) Dumping of
carcasses, excreta or waste matter in the premises belonging to SC/ST member or even in their
neighbourhood is also considered as an atrocity, when it is done with the intention to insult or cause
injury such members. (The POA Act 2015, s. 3[1][b][c]) There have many occasions where the
members of SC/ST are punished by locals by making them, parade naked/semi-naked, tonsuring their
head, hurting their dignity. Such acts are considered as atrocity under the Act. (The POA Act 2015, s.
3[1][d] [e]) The definition of atrocity has been extended to acts done in respect of land belonging to
SC/ST members. If their land is occupied or cultivated wrongfully, which is possessed by them or
allotted/ to be allotted to them, it will be considered as an act of atrocity. Destruction of crops, or
interfering with their rights of forest land, or even destroying irrigation systems are considered as
atrocity. (The POA Act 2015, s. 3[1][f] [g]) The term atrocity also extends to several social evils like
manual scavenging, (The POA Act 2015, s. 3[i]) which is a caste specific profession, and other forms
of bonded labour. Forcing a SC/ST member to carry carcasses or to dig graves is also an act of
atrocity. Performing or promoting religious practices like making SC/ST women the devdasis which
is known to lead into sexual exploitation is an act of atrocity. (The POA Act 2015, s. 3[1][k])
SC/ST members often face problems in the election process. Such problems can happen when a
SC/ST member is not allowed to vote for the candidate he /she wishes to vote for; is forced or
intimidated for no filing nomination; prevented from proposing the nomination of a SC/ST member as
a candidate. Atrocities can happen even after election when a SC/ST member of panchayat is
obstructed from performing his/her duties or functions. Post elections the members of SC/ST
community can be vulnerable to economic/ social boycotts, physical violence for either voting or not
voting for the candidates as they had been asked to. Such election related violence is covered within
the term ‘atrocity’. (The POA Act 2015, s. 3[1] [l] [m] [n] [o])
11
Institutiting false, malicious civil or criminal proceedings against SC/ST member are atrocity
under the statute. Even giving false information to the public servant, so that the later may use his/her
lawful power against such SC/ST member is considered an act of atrocity. (The POA Act 2015, s. 3[1]
[p] [q])
Acts of insulting or abusing a member of SC/ST in any place within public view is an act of
atrocity. Objects, like photographs/portraits which are held in very high regard by the SC/ST
community must not be destroyed, damaged or defiled either by words spoken or written or in any
other manner which shows ill-will against such people.
Sexual natured offences against women belonging to SC/ST community knowing that she is so, is
considered as an act of atrocity. Such act can include touching which is of sexual nature; including
words, gestures and other means. The consent of such woman has to be unmistakable voluntary
agreement. ‘Consent’ under this provision is drafted in a manner that is in consonance with the Indian
Penal Code (1860) and the Evidence Act (1872).
Polluting the water sourced from reservoir or springs so as to make them unfit for the purpose
ordinarily used by the SC/ST members in an act of atrocity. Atrocity also includes acts which deny a
SC/ST member to exercise a customary right of passage to any place of public resort. No member of
SC/ST community can be forced to leave his/her village or residence except in discharge of public
duty.
Obstruction of SC/ST members from accessing public places like parks, rivers, burial grounds,
bathing ghats, roads, etc; or from using bicycles, footwear; from celebrating marriages (like taking out
processions); or from entering places of worship; from educational institutions, hospitals, etc; or from
practicing/ carrying occupation or trade is considered as an act of atrocity under the Act (The POA Act
2015, s. 3[1] [za])
Allegations of witchcraft or calling a member of SC/ST witch can cause both mental and physical
harm. Such allegations are also atrocity under the Act. Threats of imposing boycott whether social or
economic to a SC/ST member/family/group is a punishable act, which carries punishment of
minimum six months to maximum five years, with fine.
Committing offences against the person/property of SC/ST member with the knowledge that such
person belongs to SC/ST community has been made punishable under Indian Penal Code.
[The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015,
s.3, pp 3-6]
An individual acting in violation of the order passed against him under S. 10 can face
imprisonment term of maximum one year with fine. (The POA Act 2015, s. 13)
c. Public Servant Under POA, 2015:
Unlike the 1989 legislation the 2015 Act has included elaborate provisions related to the duties of
public servants and has also specified the punishment for neglecting duties under the POA, 2015. A
12
negligent public servant under the Act or the Rules can face punishment for minimum six months and
maximum one year.
The newly added S. 4 [2] lays down the duties of public servant in addition to other duties under
the Act as well as Rule. S. 4 of the Act has listed the duties of public servant.
Public servants under
the Act have a list of duties, which basically guarantees transparency for the sake of the informant.
The duties include measures like reading out the information orally, after it is written down and before
the informant signs. The officer is also under a legal duty to register a FIR while applying the relevant
provisions of this Act. As per the statute the informant should be provided with a copy of the
information. The Act provides for recording statements from the witnesses and victims. The Act has
provides a time frame of two months within which the special court or the exclusive special court
must conduct investigation and file charge. The public servants are required to perform other duties as
may be made under the Rules, and they shall be booked only on the recommendation of an
administrative enquiry. (The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015, s. 4, pp 6-7)
S.8 of the principal Act, which speaks of situations where there can be presumption of offences
being abetted, has been amended, which requires the accused to have given monetary assistance to the
perpetrator for committing the offences under the statute. As per the newly introduced S.8 [c], the
court will presume the accused having knowledge of the identity of the victim, if he/she possess
personal knowledge of the victim, unless proved contrary.
Chapter III, S. 10, empowers the Special Court, based on reports, to remove any individual who is
likely to perpetrate a crime in the ‘Scheduled Areas’ or ‘Tribal Areas’ for a period not exceeding three
years.
The public servants are otherwise to fulfil their other statutory duties as mentioned under S.12,
when an order is passed against an individual under S.10.
d. Administrative structure:
There have been significant changes introduced in the Statute with matters related to
administration of justice. The POA, 2015 has two kinds of courts, i.e. ‘Special Court’ and ‘Exclusive
Special Court’. Session Court can function as Special Court in special circumstances under the POA,
2015. S. 14 of the principal Act has been replaced by a new provision on Special Court and Exclusive
Special Court followed by a new S.14 A on ‘Appeals’. The newly substituted S.14 aims for speedy
disposal of cases under the statute by a time bound procedure. The State Government has the power to
establish Exclusive Special Courts in Districts only after concurring with the Chief Justice of the
respective High Court. These Courts are authorised to take cognizance of the offences directly. The
State Governments are duty bound to establish appropriate number of courts for speedy disposal of
the cases under the Act. The proceedings in these courts are to be held on day to day basis till all the
13
witnesses have been examined. The Act has set the objective of completing the trials within two
months from the date of charge sheet filing.
Under S.14 A, barring interlocutory orders, appeals to all judgements, sentences and orders from
the Special Courts will lie before the High Courts. High court is empowered to hear appeals even on
order granting or refusing bail under S.378 (3) of the CrPC. Appeals can be made within 90 days, but
not after 180 days. The Statute requires the appeals to be disposed within 3 months of the admission
of the appeal.
S.15 [1] & [2] empowers the state governments to appoint Special Public Prosecutor and Exclusive
Special Public Prosecutor.
e. Rights of Victims and Witnesses:
The statute provides detailed list of duties for the public servants and the judiciary to uphold
the rights of the victims, their dependents, and even the witnesses during the course of judicial
process. S. 15 A is ensures that that it is a States responsibility to take measures to protect the victims,
and witnesses from intimidation or coercion of any kind. The Act requires the officials to have
consideration to any special needs a victim or others might have because of factors like gender, age,
economically weaker condition etc. the victim shall at all times have the right to be notified about
court proceedings, including bail proceedings. The victims can summon parties by applying to special
court, to produce documents or for the purpose of examining the persons. Victims have been ensured
a fundamental facet of natural justice, i.e. right to be heard at the proceedings. (The POA Act 2015, s.
15A[5]) S.15 A emphasises on victim protection & welfare, and witness protection. Irrespective of the
protections guaranteed under CrPC, 1973, under the Act the courts must provide victims, dependents
complete protection, travelling and maintenance expenses, rehabilitation and relocation to secure the
ends of justice. The protection measures so given to the victims and others have to be periodically
reviewed by the concerned courts and appropriate orders have to be passed. The Act has elaborate
measures for witness and victim protection on application, and it requires the courts to take steps like
concealing details of identification, like name, address from documents accessible to public; prompt
actions in complaints of harassment by passing appropriate orders, within sixty days of receiving such
complaint. If such complaints are against a public servant, the court must restrain such person from
interfering with the harassed person. Such public servant may still continue his services in unrelated
cases than the one complained against, only with the permission of the court. The statute obliges the
investigating officer to record complaints and also provides a photocopy of the FIR immediately. All
proceedings under this Act must video recorded. (The POA Act 2015, s. 15A[10]) The Act ensures
access to justice to the victims and others, and the state governments are duty bound to come up with
schemes to fulfil the duties listed in S. 15 A (11). The duties include, providing FIR copies free of
cost; relief in cash or kind to victims and others; protection to victims and others; relief in situation of
14
damage caused to property or person; make arrangements for food, medicine, transport, daily
allowances, maintenance for victims; protection from harassment or intimidation; safeguards during
medical examinations; disclose information to organizations regarding relief amounts; provide legal
aid. The victims have a right to take aid from NGOs and others. (S.15 A of the The Scheduled Castes
And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, s. 15A.)
f.
Miscellaneous:
Under the POA, 2015, the miscellaneous powers still remain the same. They are as follows:

State government will have power to impose collective fine (The POA Act, 2015, s. 16);

S.17 empowers the District Magistrate, Executive Magistrate and any police officer not below
the rank of Deputy Superintendent of police to declare areas as atrocity prone areas, as a
preventative measure, with an objective to maintain law and order.

This legislation will prevail over every other law in force, or any custom or usage or any
instrument having effect by virtue of any legislation. (The POA Act, 2015, s. 20)
POA Rules:
The Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, has listed the amendments in the PoA
Rules:(ii) the POA Rules have prescribed relief for the new forms of atrocities, and have delinked relief
amount with any kind of medical examination for offences in the nature of sexual harassment.
(iii) it provides relief for offences like gang rape and rape.
(iv) The relief amount has been increased to the limit of rupees eight lakh twenty five thousand,
which is a raise of 10%, subject to the nature of the offence committed. (Press Information Bureau,
Government of India Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, 2016 15th April.)
Conclusion:
Keeping true to the ideas of social and economic justice as enumerated in the Constitution of
India, the SCs/STs have been given more legal protection under the amended POA, 2015 and the
consequent Rules of 2016. The amended Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Rules, 1995, specifies 47 categories of offences in which State Governments are required
to pay compensation amount to the amount of Rs 1 lakh to Rs 8.25 lakh to the victims. (Now, SC/ST
Victims to Get Minimum Compensation of Rs 8.5 Lakh from State Government, Aman Sharma, Apr
15, 2016)
The responsibility of making the law a success is shared by citizens, administrative officials, and
the judiciary as well. The said law upholds the constitutional values that every human being has an
inherent right to be treated with dignity and should never be a victim of any form of discrimination by
reason of caste identity.
15
Summary
• The amended POA Act unlike the principal Statute has brought into its fold offences from IPC, like
hurt, intimidation, kidnapping, etc, which are punishable with less than ten years of imprisonment.
• The POA Act with a purpose to carry out speedy disposal of cases, created courts, like Exclusive
Special Courts to be supported by officials like Exclusive Special Public Prosecutors.
• The Special Courts, can take direct cognizance of offence and they are required to complete trial
within sixty days from the filing of charge sheet.
 New provision on ‘Appeals’ has been introduced giving jurisdiction to High Courts to hear such
appeals on both matters of fact as well as law.
• The rights of victims and witnesses have laid down elaborately in a separate new chapter.

The proceedings under this Act have to video recorded.
•The amended statute explains the term ‘willful negligence’ with respect to public servants at all
stages, beginning from the registration of complaint, and covering aspects of dereliction of duty under
this Act.
• Under the amended law the accused will be presumed to have committed the offence if he is found
to be acquainted with the victims family as well as the caste or tribal identity of the victim.
16