LS passes bill to restore SC/ST Act
New Delhi, Aug 6: The Lok Sabha on Monday passed the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2018, which seeks to overturn a Supreme Court order that struck down the provision for immediate arrest.
The amendment bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha by Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment Thaawar Chand Gehlot last week.
"The government had filed a review petition in the Supreme Court with regard to its order to strike down the original provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
"Following the court decision, many SC/ST organisations called for a 'Bharat Bandh', leading to unfortunate incidents. The court decision says that to arrest an accused, approval of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSPs) concerned will be required. But this is not possible because in most parts of the country there are no SSPs," Gehlot said while speaking on the bill in the Lok Sabha.
He pointed out that in his native state Madhya Pradesh, SSPs are posted only in Gwalior, Bhopal and Indore.
Replying to the debate on the bill, Gehlot asked the Congress if they were so concerned about protecting the rights of the SCs and ST, why didn't they strengthen the Act for so many years since the Act was passed in 1989.
"If they thought there was scope for improvement in the Act and if there were some gaps, why didn't they amend it? They accuse us of delaying in bringing the amendment bill, but why didn't they do till 2015, when our government strengthened the Act?" he said.
The Minister also said that under the Act, now there are 47 crimes registered, while earlier there were just 22 crimes. "We didn't delay in bringing the amendment bill. The opposition tried to create an atmosphere in the country by spreading propaganda that we were anti-SC/ST and were delaying the bill," Gehlot added.
Leader of Congress party in Lok Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge said it took three-four months for the Narendra Modi government to bring the bill in the House and also questioned why it did not bring an ordinance on the matter for so long.
"If the government could bring six ordinances on various other issues to favour a corporate, it also could have brought the 7th ordinance on this matter. But, unfortunately, the government could not bring an ordinance to protect the rights of millions (over 25 per cent population) of such persons in the country," said Kharge.
The Act prohibits commission of offences against members of the weaker sections and establishes special courts for trial of such offences and rehabilitation of victims.
On March 20, the Supreme Court ruled that to arrest persons accused of committing an offence under the said Act, approval of the SSP concerned will be required. Further, a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) may conduct a preliminary inquiry to find out whether a prima facie case is made out under the Act.
The bill states that the Investigating Officer will not require approval of any authority for the arrest of the accused. Further, it provides that a preliminary inquiry will not be required for the registration of an FIR against those accused under the Act.
The bill says that persons accused of committing an offence under the proposed Act cannot apply for anticipatory bail. It seeks to clarify that this provision will apply despite any judgments or orders of a court that provide otherwise.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
HC to decide if gram panchayat members can continue in Manipur post tenure: SC
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday said the high court would decide whether the elected gram panchayat members, whose five-year tenure was over in Manipur, were entitled to continue in their posts in the event of the appointment of an administrative committee or an administrator.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said it would like to have the benefit of the view of the high court in the matter and set a three-month time frame to adjudicate the legal question.
"The question that falls for consideration in this case is that whether the elected member of the Gram Panchayat whose five-year tenure is over was entitled to continue as members of the gram panchayat in the event of appointment of administrative committee or administrator, as contemplated under Section 22 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act of 1994," the bench noted.
The Manipur government’s counsel said the state could not hold panchayat elections due to the unprecedented violence.
"Since, we would like to have the advantage of the opinion of the high court, we dispose of the special leave petition without expressing any opinion on merits, with the request to the chief justice of Manipur High Court to post the main case before a division bench at the earliest. We further request the division bench, before whom the matter is listed, to provide expeditious hearing with an endeavour to resolve the controversy within three months," the bench said.
The bench noted that provision of Manipur Panchayati Raj Act was amended to substitute the word "cease" with the word "continue" with respect to the tenure of the elected members of the gram panchayat.
The petitioners have challenged a high court order and submitted that since elections in gram panchayat could not be held in Manipur for various reasons, the previously elected members of the panchayat were entitled to continue as per the amended Section 22 (3) of 1994 Act.
Section 22 deals with the power of deputy commissioner to appoint an administrative committee or an administrator for a period of six months, which will then oversee the election.
Section 22 (3) of the law says once the administrative committee or an administrator is appointed by the deputy commissioner, the elected members of earlier gram panchayat shall cease to exist.
The top court said what has been challenged before it was an interlocutory order of the high court and the main petition in which the question of law that had been raised was still pending.
The original petitioners before the high court were elected representatives at the fifth general elections for gram panchayats and the zilla parishads who sought a direction to continue in the office beyond the period of five years as stipulated by law as elections were last held in 2017.
They sought to continue as panchayat members till the time the state election commission notified the election for the sixth general elections for gram panchayats and zilla parishads.
On February 29, last year, the high court in its interim order gave liberty to Manipur government to appoint an administrative committee for each gram panchayat and zilla parishad in accordance with law and the provision of the Act.
