SC refuses to stay its order on SC/ST Act

Adjust Comment Print

Meanwhile, Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh said, the government has no plan to do away with quota policy for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the country. Chauhan was allegedly captured in camera for firing at the people during the protest here.

Congress leaders also countered BJP President Amit Shah's allegations earlier in the day that the party had ignored B.R. Ambedkar.

Regarding the large number of people who took to the streets in protest, Goel said, "Sometimes, people agitated may not have read the order properly".

Quoting a saying 'willing to hurt but afraid to strike, ' he said the attitude of Bharatiya Janata Party government was similar in the issue of SC, ST Atrocities Act. The Ghaziabad SSP has said that at least 5,000 people have been booked in the cases of violence.

THE Supreme Court on Tuesday said those agitating against its March 20 order putting in place certain safeguards on arrests under the SC/ST Act may not have read the judgement or could have been misled by "vested interests", as it refused to keep in abeyance the verdict. Seven people were killed after the protest turned violent with people resorting to stone pelting, damaging properties across various states including UP, Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana, Bihar, Jharkhand, Gujarat, Maharashtra.

The apex court, while hearing the petition submitted by Attorney General K.K Venugopal, said it was not against the act, and also stated that now the matter will be heard after 10 days.

It said the judgement defeated the very intention of the SC/ST Act and would have far-reaching consequences, especially in northern India where Dalit communities were much discriminated against and harassed, Mr. Balan said. They also say the Centre has failed to highlight two key facts in court - the high rate of atrocities on the community and the abysmally low rate of conviction.

'Through this House, I appeal to all the citizens to maintain peace and harmony amongst themselves.

"The judgement is not in conflict with the SC/ST Act". Amarendra Sharan, amicus curiae in the matter, countered this point by explaining that the directions, in no way, deny compensation to be promptly paid to the victim, but only mandates a preliminary inquiry. The bench however, mentioned that they were not diluting the Act, but instead were seeking to protect innocents booked under the Act. "There has been new provision where action against government servants shall be taken against those found negligent in implementing the Act", he said.