SC/ST Act cannot be converted into Charter for Exploitation by unscrupulous persons, Madras HC

In an order passed on Wednesday, the Madras High Court castigated those who misuse the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (‘SC/ST Act’), 1989, observing that,.“The [SC/ST] Act cannot be converted into a Charter for exploitation or oppression by any unscrupulous person or by police for extraneous reasons against other citizens. Any harassment of a citizen by using this Act, is against the guarantee given by the Constitution. .If such false complaints are entertained, instead of blurring caste lines, it will only promote caste hatred. Such false complaints unfortunately may even perpetuate casteism. The legislature never intended to use this Act as an instrument to blackmail or to wreak personal vengeance against innocent citizens. This sensitization has to be necessarily understood by the prosecuting agencies.“.Justice N Anand Venkatesh made the observation while quashing an FIR filed against a former Vice Chancellor of the Bharathiyar University by a PhD graduate (complainant) in 2017..The PhD graduate preferred the complaint after she was denied employment as an Assistant Professor at the Bharathiyar University. She claimed that the post was reserved for a Scheduled Caste Arunthathiyar Women candidate. Instead, the posting was given to a male Scheduled Caste candidate. This, she contended, was in violation of the recruitment rules..Further she was also denied a post doctoral research fellowship, despite recommendation from her mentor who was attached to the university. She alleged that she was also insulted in public view when she went to query about the reasons for denying her the opportunity..Moreover, she stated that her husband, who was a driver at the University, was stripped of his employment in view of her caste background..The FIR registered on the basis of these claims came to be challenged by the Vice Chancellor against whom the complaints were made in the Madras High Court..In turn, the High Court concluded that there was little merit to the claims made in the FIR. The Court was informed that the Assistant Professor post was denied as the complainant did not possess the necessary qualification for the post. Moreover, the post itself was eventually given to an SC candidate..Further, it was submitted that the research fellowship was not granted to the complainant as the University did not have an adequate laboratory for the specialization she sought. The same was also done in respect of two other scholars. In any event, the Court noted that the selection of researchers for the fellowship was a purely administrative decision..As for the termination of the complainant’s husband’s employment, the Court noted that the same was done after conducting a thorough enquiry. Finally, the Court also found that the complainant had not furnished any particulars as to how and when she was insulted in public view to invite penalisation under the SC/ST Act. The Court noted,.“The Defacto Complainant is an educated women who has completed PH.D. She has given a detailed complaint and she is capable of clearly explaining things. Therefore, the minimum that was required to be stated in the complaint is the date, time, place where she was insulted and the words that were used against her by the petitioner. The complaint is completely bereft of these details and there is a vague allegation that the petitioner insulted the 2nd respondent in public view. .These allegations do not make out an offence under Section 3(1) (r) of the Act. In order to apply this provision, it must be supported with some minimum facts. “.In view of these observations, the Court found that it would be too far fetched to make out an offence under the SC/ST Act. It concluded,.“This Court is of the considered view that the 2nd respondent has virtually attempted to ventilate her grievance regarding her employment and Post Doctoral Fellowship, by using (rather misusing) the Act…..…The allegations made in the FIR, even if it is taken on their face value and accepted in its entirety, do not constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused. In the considered view of this Court, the case on hand is one such case where criminal proceedings is manifestly tainted with malafides and this Court has to necessarily interfere with the same.“.It, therefore, quashed the FIR preferred by the complainant. However, before parting with the case, Justice Venkatesh emphasised that the order does not imply that the Court is blind to the prevalence of caste discrimination..“This Court is completely aware about the prevailing discrimination that continuous against persons belonging to SC & ST Community, more particularly, in the rural villages. There are vested interest who wants this caste system to continue for their own selfish interest. It is unpalatable to mention but yet it is a painful reality that the entire system in the State is operating in the lines of caste. Even candidates are selected during elections based on the majority caste to which he belongs in the particular locality. This caste gene, if it can be so coined, is deeply entrenched in people, particularly in villages. Unless, this gene is completely effaced, this major problem is bound to continue. “.All the same, he noted that the Court cannot permit the misuse of the SC/ST Act, which could defeat the object of the Act itself. It held,.“… this Act should not be permitted to be put to misuse by trying to give a skewed meaning for every administrative decision taken by the authority or an employer. The crime against the member of the oppressed society is heinous and should not be tolerated. But at the same time, such member of the society cannot use it as a weapon to wreak vengeance. If such tendency is encouraged, it will defeat the very object of the Act and will ultimately have a huge impact by weakening even the genuine cases of the prosecution…. … This Court does not want this Act to be one more reason for perpetuating casteism and let this Act be used to handle genuine cases of atrocities committed against SC & ST.“.Read the order: