Centre’s role in changes to SC/ST Atrocities Act: Are BJP ministers misleading, or ignorant?
Rajnath Singh and Ravi Shankar Prasad say the government was not a party to the judgment.
As the issue of the Bharat bandh and the resultant deaths and violence continues to simmer and a political slugfest over it rages on, a worrying fact has come to light – Union ministers seem to be mistaken about the government’s role in the March 20 Supreme Court judgement that “diluted” the SC/ST atrocities Act, triggering the protests.
While both home minister Rajnath Singh and law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad have gone on record to state that the government was not a party to the SC judgment and did not agree with it, the court’s records say otherwise.
The Congress has latched on to this, and has been stridently accusing the government of lying. No one from the government has responded to the allegations, though a lot of statements have been made from the BJP reaffirming the party's concern for the Dalit community, and accusing the Opposition of orchestrating the bandh violence.
The prime minister finally broke his silence on the issue – which saw life paralysed in large parts of the country for two days – on April 4, by saying that no government “had honoured Ambedkar as we have”.
What the ministers have said
Rajnath Singh, speaking in Parliament on the violence and vandalism the protests saw, categorically stated: “I fully appreciate that there is widespread anger amongst the people, following the Supreme Court order. I wish to inform the house that Government of India was not party in that case.”
On April 2, law minister Prasad had said: “With great respect, the government differs from the SC judgment virtually changing the entire structure of SC/ST Act.
Modi government is firmly committed to the protection, safety, security, and dignity of SC/ST, he said.
He added: “It is also important to note that the government was not a party in the proceedings at all.”
What the judgment says
The changes that the SC made to the Atrocities Act on March 20 include putting in the need for written permission from appointing authorities for action against public servants, allowing the arrest of private citizens only after the Senior Superintendent of Police’s nod, and no blanket ban on bail to an accused.
The March 20 order of the SC clearly states: “In view of decisions in Vilas Pandurang Pawar (supra) and Shakuntla Devi (supra), learned ASG has rightly stated that there is no absolute bar to grant anticipatory bail if no prima facie case is made out inspite of validity of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act being upheld.”
The order, in fact, has an entire section titled “Submissions of learned Additional Solicitor General”, who is a representative of the central government.
During the review hearing on April 3, the court again said that it had passed its order on the basis of the data provided by the government, and also wondered why the Centre had now changed its stand.
“The Union itself had said there was abuse,” Justice AK Goel stated. Amrendra Sharan, amicus curiae in the case, too, said: “It was the government which gave the data, made the submissions and now they are challenging the judgment.”
Justice Goel also said that it was the government that brought the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Social Justice and Empowerment (2014-15) on the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2014, on record. The report had rejected the stand of the ministry that there was no need to act against false or malafide implications under the Atrocities Act.
What the Congress says
The Congress has, predictably, gone to town on the issue. “They (the government) were very much a party. The government was represented, it did not argue the case. The government opened the window for anticipatory bail. The government endorsed by default by not telling the court that it cannot dilute the law, it cannot reinterpret the law, it cannot change the law. So, the government is a willing party to what has happened," party leader Anand Sharma said.
Congress spokesperson Randeep Surjewala said the Supreme Court had issued a notice to Maharashtra government and the Union government in November 2017. Maharashtra is also ruled by the BJP.
He said the order had said “issue notice to Attorney General of India also as the issue involves interpretation of a central statute". But the Modi government did not send the Attorney General to the court. The Solicitor General was also not sent. They, in turn, sent an additional solicitor general."
There are more inconsistencies in the government’s statements. Rajnath Singh said in the Parliament: “Immediately after the judgement of Supreme Court, a decision was taken by my Government to file a review petition in the Supreme Court… This shows the prompt action by Government and does not leave any doubt regarding the intention of the Government to protect the interest of the SC/ST.”
However, the Centre waited to file the review petition till the protests snowballed into a major issue, even though the BJP’s own MPs had been urging the government to act.
The Supreme Court’s order is to all assumptions not malafide, but only wishes to prevent misuse of the law.
On its part, the BJP ministers must explain why they are claiming they are not a party to the judgement. Instead of turning the protests into a competition of who loves Ambedkar more, the government should address the doubts the row has cast on its efficiency and integrity.