Three innocent Dalit youths, including two minor, were
killed by police in Thangadh where police denied lodging a simple complaint
against upper castes people who had beaten Dalits over a minor scuffle. Had the
police lodged the complaint, the tragedy would have been averted. In Gujarat
chief minister is directly responsible for the non-implementation of the
Atrocity Act.
Under The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it is the duty of District Superintendent
of Police (DSP) to appoint an officer not below the rank of DySP as an
investigating officer for the offenses registered under the same act.
On 16 April, 2004, a question was asked to chief minister
Modi in Gujarat legislative assembly: “Honorable chief minister [Home] may
oblige us to tell, is it true that the DSP is responsible for the appointment
of an officer not below the rank of DySP as investigating officer in the offenses under atrocities act? The answer of our chief minister was shocking.
He said: “No, but there is a provision under rule 7 (1) of SC/ST act, 1995 to
appoint officers not above the rank of DySP to inquire into all cases booked
under atrocities act. It is not the responsibility of DSP.”
“The officer not above the rank of DySP” means he may be
a PSI or PI and in most of the atrocities cases courts acquit the accused
because the investigation officer is either PSI or PI. Over 150 such judgments
collected by the Council for Social Justice revealed that in 95% of the cases,
the accused have been acquitted because of negligence on part of the
authorities. In number of these cases, while the accused has been convicted
under IPC section for murder and attempt to murder, has gone scot-free on the
atrocity charge.
In one judgment, an honorable judge even went on to say
that, “the government of Gujarat has in the year 1999 passed a resolution
amending the Atrocities Act 1989, whereby the investigation can be undertaken
even by a police officer not below the rank of P.I.” The Atrocities Act was
enacted by parliament of India. No state government can pass any resolution to
amend the act. When the chief minister and a judge both possess utter ignorance
about an important act, what can we expect from an ordinary constable or clerk
of this machinery?