How to Protect Yourself from False Accusations Under the SC/ST Atrocity Act

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, often referred to as the SC/ST Atrocity Act, is a cornerstone of India’s legal framework designed to protect the dignity and rights of historically oppressed communities. Enacted in 1989, the Act aims to prevent discrimination, violence, and social exclusion faced by members of the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST).

While the law is vital in ensuring justice and empowerment, concerns about its misuse have steadily grown. False allegations can lead to social stigma, professional setbacks, and even incarceration, affecting innocent individuals and undermining the true intent of the legislation.

According to a 2022 government report:

• 14.78% of SC-related cases and 14.71% of ST-related cases under the Act were closed with final reports due to false claims or lack of evidence.
• Charge sheets were filed in only 60.38% of SC cases and 63.32% of ST cases.
• The conviction rate under the Act dropped to 32.4% in 2022, compared to 39.2% in 2020.

These numbers reflect the dual reality of the Act—it remains essential for protecting the vulnerable, yet also susceptible to exploitation in certain cases.

In this blog, you will learn:

• How people misuse the SC/ST Act
• What legal steps can be taken in case of misuse
• How to defend yourself in a fake atrocity case
• Key Supreme Court judgments and case studies on misuse

What Can You Do If You Are Wrongly Charged or the SC/ST Act Is Being Misused?

A person who has been wrongly charged under the SC/ST Act may pursue certain legal measures from the judiciary, even if there is no explicit provision under the legislation for someone who has been the victim of the Act's exploitation for certain nefarious purposes. A person can file a writ petition and claim that his right to life and liberty, as protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, has been violated to make their way to the high courts and the Supreme Court.

In addition, the individual who has been unfairly accused has the option to counter the complaint to the SC-ST member who made the false accusations against them. Although anticipatory bail is not mentioned in the Act for violations under the SC-ST Act, the accused has been granted anticipatory bail in several recent decisions by the Supreme Court and the High Courts in situations involving false SC-ST allegations. A person who has been wrongfully accused may also seek redress by seeking refuge under the Indian Penal Code's defamation provisions. For more information on the procedure, check out our guide on initiating a defamation case.

Can FIR Under The SC/ST Act Be Quashed?

First Information Reports (FIRs) submitted in accordance with the SC/ST Atrocity Act may be quashed; however, this is up for legal discussion and interpretation. Though the SC/ST Atrocity Act is a specific statute created to defend the rights of marginalized people and prevent atrocities against them, it is theoretically conceivable to seek the quashing of an FIR under certain conditions. As a result, while considering applications to dismiss FIRs issued by this Act, courts often exercise caution.

When there are abnormalities in the procedure, when there is insufficient proof, or when the claims are shown to be unfounded or frivolous, the FIRs are usually quashed. Courts may, however, examine these petitions more closely due to the delicate nature of cases under the SC/ST Atrocity Act and the legislative intent behind its establishment. They frequently place a high priority on defending the rights and interests of SC/ST people as well as their communities, making sure that atrocities are adequately handled and justice is done.

The judge has the last say over whether to dismiss an FIR under the SC/ST Atrocity Act, and this judgment is based on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. People who are looking for this kind of relief must speak with legal professionals who are knowledgeable about the ins and outs of this particular field of law.

How To Counter Fake Cases Of Atrocity?

The question of the improper use of anti-atrocity statutes has been heard by Indian courts on several occasions. Individuals frequently utilize it as a means of achieving their hidden agendas, such as settling political or financial conflicts or using it as a kind of blackmail. It may be observed that via widespread misuse with an indirect goal of gratifying entrenched interests, as the Apex Court correctly noted in the Mahajan case. However, the Parliament has said categorically that it would not be creating any safeguards or laws to stop this misuse. The parliament declares that it will repeal the Act in its entirety, for which it was passed.

Nonetheless, it is impossible to overlook the current abuse of the legislation. Strict legislation must be passed to stop this usage. To stop this problem, a clause requiring a formal preliminary investigation can be established. In addition, anticipatory bail has to be made necessary, as the Mahajan ruling did. Later on, though, this was changed back. It is imperative to ensure that the Act does not serve as a means of exploiting the perception of non-SC-STs. Proper guidelines for the arrest of the guilty should also be established to avoid the arrest of innocent persons.

Case Studies and the Supreme Court Judgement on Misuse of SC/ST Act

Below are notable case studies that highlight concerns about the misuse of the SC/ST Act, analyzed under four key heads: Parties, Issue, Outcome, and Impact.

1. X v. State of Kerala and Anr. (2022)

• Parties: A non-SC/ST accused and a Scheduled Caste woman complainant.
• Issue: The accused was alleged to have publicly insulted the complainant using caste-based remarks while she visited a bank.
• Outcome: Kerala High Court granted pre-arrest bail, observing that the complaint might be rooted in personal enmity.
• Impact: The court acknowledged the potential misuse of the SC/ST Act and stressed the need to balance victim protection with safeguards for the accused.

2. Jawed Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022)

• Parties: Panchayat secretary (complainant) and the accused Jawed Khan.
• Issue: Allegations of threat and verbal abuse leading to SC/ST Act charges.
• Outcome: Anticipatory bail was granted by the High Court, citing insufficient evidence and possible misuse of law.
• Impact: Reinforced that anticipatory bail can be considered in SC/ST Act cases when misuse or weak grounds are evident.

3. Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021)

• Parties: Accused Patan Jamal Vali and a blind Dalit woman (victim).
• Issue: Rape of a disabled Scheduled Caste woman.
• Outcome: Conviction upheld by Supreme Court; emphasized intersectionality of caste, gender, and disability.
• Impact: Not a misuse case but a landmark ruling advancing inclusive interpretation of justice; led to directions for training police and judiciary in handling such cases.

4. Asharfi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018)

• Parties: Accused Asharfi and a Scheduled Caste woman (victim).
• Issue: Alleged rape with caste-based motive post the 2016 amendment to Section 3(2)(v).
• Outcome: Supreme Court clarified that knowledge of victim’s caste is enough post-amendment, even if caste wasn't the motive.
• Impact: Important clarification on the scope of Section 3(2)(v) post-2016, affecting interpretation in future prosecutions.

5. Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Ors. (2020)

• Parties: Petitioner Prathvi Raj Chauhan and Union of India (respondents).
• Issue: Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC can apply to SC/ST Act cases.
• Outcome: Court held Section 438 doesn't apply where a prima facie case exists, but may apply in exceptional situations.
• Impact: Balanced approach adopted by the judiciary to safeguard against both misuse and denial of bail where charges are unfounded.

6. National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights v. Union of India (2017)

• Parties: NGO and public interest groups vs. Government of India.
• Issue: Inaction by State authorities in implementing provisions of the SC/ST PoA Act.
• Outcome: Supreme Court directed State governments to enforce the Act strictly and urged national commissions to raise awareness and provide legal aid.
• Impact: Highlighted systemic failure in implementing the Act and emphasized the importance of administrative accountability and public legal education.

Falsely Accused Under the SC/ST Atrocity Act?

Consult a Legal Expert to Protect Your Rights.

Book Your Consultation Now

Over 4,800 Trusted Lawyers Ready to Assist

Conclusion

Protecting yourself from false accusations under the SC/ST Atrocity Act requires a solid understanding of the law, seeking timely legal advice from a qualified lawyer, and remaining vigilant in both your conduct and rights. While the Act is crucial for safeguarding marginalized communities, it's equally important to prevent its misuse.

By staying informed, maintaining documentation, and promoting fairness, we can strike a balance between justice for victims and protection for the innocent—ensuring the law remains a tool for equality, not exploitation.

References:

1. SC/ST Atrocity Act: A Complete Guide