On Friday(23rd August), The Supreme Court of India clarified that not all insults or intimidating comments against SC/ST individuals automatically qualify as offenses under the SC/ST Act. This ruling came while granting anticipatory bail to Shajan Skaria, who faced charges under the Act for allegedly posting a derogatory video targeting a Kerala MLA from a Scheduled Caste community.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted interim bail to Baldev Singh, the first such order under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Charged with intentional insult, criminal intimidation, and violations of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, he was released upon furnishing a bond of Rs 25,000. The court also instructed him to cooperate with the ongoing investigation and set a hearing for July 14.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that an offense under the SC/ST Act must occur in public view to be established. The court quashed proceedings for an offense committed in a private residence, emphasizing that intentional insult or intimidation causing humiliation must be in public view. This ruling is significant in fighting caste-based violence and discrimination in India.
The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision that a probation period should be considered as work experience for NTPC recruitment. The candidate, not an apprentice, received a regular salary and performed duties akin to permanent employees. The advertisement did not specify exclusion of probationary periods, justifying the Division Bench’s interpretation.
Today, On 15th May, The Supreme Court reserved its decision on granting pre-arrest bail to a Kerala YouTuber accused of posting defamatory content against an MLA. Both parties presented their arguments, focusing on the application of the SC/ST Act. The case is significant in testing legal protections against caste discrimination and the challenges faced by media personalities.
The Supreme Court is reviewing the provision in the SC/ST Act that mandates capital punishment for false evidence. The challenge argues it contradicts the “rarest-of-rare” standard for capital punishment. The petitioner highlighted previous rulings, and the court plans to consider reforms in other penal laws. No cases of capital punishment under this provision have been found.
On Tuesday(9th April), The Rajasthan High Court issued an interim order to prevent coercive action against a judicial officer accused of instructing a rape survivor to undress in court. The court emphasized the importance of press freedom while warning against sensationalizing the case. The case is scheduled for further proceedings on May 27. The accused officer’s actions are being contested by the Rajasthan Judicial Services Officers Association.
In Hindaun, Rajasthan, an 18-year-old Dalit gang rape survivor accuses a magistrate of forcing her to undress under the guise of examining her injuries. The incident sparked widespread outrage, leading to an FIR against the magistrate under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Rajasthan High Court has ordered an investigation. Women’s groups and human rights organizations have expressed grave concern over the incident, prompting a thorough examination by authorities.
On 13th March, The Jharkhand High Court grants protective order to AajTak’s Sudhir Chaudhary, following SC/ST Act complaint. Similar to Supreme Court’s ruling, no coercive actions against him. Allegations stem from comments on tribal community after former Chief Minister’s detention. Supreme Court’s notice to state police prevents coercive steps. High Court aligns stance after apex court’s decree. Jharkhand High Court defers examination of annulment pleas until Supreme Court’s deliberations. Chaudhary’s legal representatives focus on complainants’ allegations only.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that in accordance with Section 15A (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, all proceedings must be recorded on video. The Bombay High Court on Monday has mandated that all proceedings under this act must be video recorded. This decision, as per Section 15A […]
