SC claims that the act has not led to an increase in convictions so far and many file cases under this act against higher level bureaucrats to defame them.
SC also found that 15-16 per cent of atrocity cases meet a premature end at the magistrate’s desk without any proper evidence.
But from Supreme Court’s earlier judgements it is evident that SC has failed to establish the prevalence to any degree of abuse of the law.
It has now taken a single case to make a blanket amendment to the law, which has implications for all atrocity accused and not just public servants.
What are the practical concerns faced by the scheduled castes?
Many surveys proves that in various scenarios a victim need to face uphill tasks for registering a complaint and the FIRs were also filed in adverse circumstances.
In many instances the victims are threatened by the authorities from registering a complaint.
Even after the FIR is registered, the perpetrators, often in connivance with the police tamper with evidencetowards weakening the case or coaxing the complainant to withdraw.
These attempts at intimidation and active obstruction by perpetrators mar the fate of cases in courts too.
Most upper-dominant castes believe that the Atrocities Act grants it immunity from further retribution.
What measures needs to be considered?
The judiciary needs to be sensitised to the nature and operation of caste in Indian society if it is to uphold this faith.
Unravelling the truth in acts of willing and dehumanising violence, for which there is a seeming tolerance in society, requires an unsparing law.
