Calling all cool guys

[nallajamoon]

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/scst-atrocities-act-has-become-a-means-to-blackmail-citizens-public-servants-sc/article23303970.ece

[Satakarni_bali]

Em jarugutundhi ikkada, title cool undi but posts ala levu anukunta

[nallajamoon]

No automatic arrest in cases under SC/ST Act: Top court moves to prevent ‘rampant misuse’

Supreme Court says a preliminary probe by an officer not below the rank of deputy superintendent is a must before arresting a public servant under the SC/ST Act.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday banned automatic arrests and registration of criminal cases under the Scheduled Castes (SC) and the Scheduled Tribes (ST) Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, a legislation meant to protect the marginalised communities from abuse and discrimination.

A bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit ruled that no arrests can be made under the act without prior permission. It also held that a court can grant a pre-bail arrest (anticipatory bail) if it, prima facie, finds the complaint is an abuse of the law, false, motivated and intended to blackmail or harass a person.

This was necessary, the court said, to prevent the “rampant misuse of the tough provisions of the law.”

“A law should not result in caste hatred,” the bench said.

Presently, the SC/ST Act bars a court from granting anticipatory bail to a person accused of the offence. On receiving a complaint, the police are bound to immediately register a First Information Report (FIR) and arrest the accused. A convicted person under the Act faces between six months in prison to capital punishment.

The law was first enacted in 1989 and strengthened in 2015, when caste slurs was also brought under its ambit. But conviction rates remain low and many activists complain that local police and law administration often dilute provisions and conduct shoddy investigation, resulting in high rates of acquittal.

In 2016, for example, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) recorded that the national rate of conviction for cases filed under the SC/ST Act stood at 15.4%. In contrast, conviction rate under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act stood at 33.3% and the Electricity Act was 89.8%. In the same year, around 1,300 people were convicted under the act and more than 7,000 people were acquitted, recorded the NCRB.

In Tuesday’s judgment, the court noted that the NCRB had recorded that in 2016 among the cases filed for crimes against scheduled caste persons, 5,347 cases were found to be false and 912 of the ST cases were found to be false. The bench underlined the need to provide safeguards in view of the misuse observed in the last three decades.

To protect the liberty of individuals, the bench said a public servant can only be arrested after the approval of the appointing authority. In case of a non-public servant, the approval of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) is necessary. A permission to arrest may be granted in appropriate cases but with recorded reasons, which must be served upon the accused and also to the court. Such reasons must be scrutinised by the magistrate for permitting further detention.

The apex court also made it mandatory for the police to hold a preliminary enquiry, not exceeding a week.

The could was hearing a petition filed by Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, who challenged a Bombay high court order that refused to quash an FIR against him under the Act. The complainant in that case was a member of the SC community and had lodged the case after Mahajan refused to grant sanction to prosecute two other employees who had made adverse comments against the complainant. The SC allowed his appeal and quashed his case, terming it an “abuse of process of law.”

The order evoked mixed reactions.

Senior Supreme Court advocate CU Singh said the safeguard was required as far as arrests were concerned but for registration of FIRs, the court should not have given any directions to conduct a preliminary probe because it goes against a judgment of the Constitution Bench that made it mandatory for the police to register an FIR the moment a cognisable offence is alleged. “In the absence of empirical data, the court should not have held that the law is being misused,” he added.

Advocate Gopal Sankaranaryanan, another lawyer from the top court, said the judgment should be encouraged to check the misuse of law. “But my fear is this is difficult to enforce,” he said, referring to non-compliance by the police of a four-year-old verdict on dowry harassment that laid down guidelines to stop frivolous cases.

 

Ramesh Nathan, general secretary of the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, pointed out that the act was already not implemented properly. “There is a high rate of acquittal, including in well-known cases of massacre such as Laxmanpur Bathe in Bihar and Tsunduru in Andhra Pradesh,” he said. He added that the possibility of misuse existed in every legislation.

[nallajamoon]

Just now, Satakarni_bali said:

Em jarugutundhi ikkada, title cool undi but posts ala levu anukunta

genocidal maniac @utterwaste gadochi as usual erigi kampu chesadu

[uttermost]

3 minutes ago, nallajamoon said:

i am not the one wishing death to all people belonging to one category, or goes online hoping for that nation to go down the drain. poll pedatha lets' see what the people in DB say, lol. i don't even have to ra, it's obvious. 

yeah you can claim whatever you want, because you made a fool of yourself by not reading the article you posted, which made my point better than it made yours. lol.

you can even claim that I killed JFK.. such is the nature of claims. you previously claimed that dalits are slapping false atrocity cases. The truth is that, atrocity case is not very easy to file. and they don't file it for bullshit reasons you tried to argue earlier.

when in fact, they should.

[nallajamoon]

Just now, nallajamoon said:

No automatic arrest in cases under SC/ST Act: Top court moves to prevent ‘rampant misuse’

Supreme Court says a preliminary probe by an officer not below the rank of deputy superintendent is a must before arresting a public servant under the SC/ST Act.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday banned automatic arrests and registration of criminal cases under the Scheduled Castes (SC) and the Scheduled Tribes (ST) Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, a legislation meant to protect the marginalised communities from abuse and discrimination.

A bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit ruled that no arrests can be made under the act without prior permission. It also held that a court can grant a pre-bail arrest (anticipatory bail) if it, prima facie, finds the complaint is an abuse of the law, false, motivated and intended to blackmail or harass a person.

This was necessary, the court said, to prevent the “rampant misuse of the tough provisions of the law.”

“A law should not result in caste hatred,” the bench said.

Presently, the SC/ST Act bars a court from granting anticipatory bail to a person accused of the offence. On receiving a complaint, the police are bound to immediately register a First Information Report (FIR) and arrest the accused. A convicted person under the Act faces between six months in prison to capital punishment.

The law was first enacted in 1989 and strengthened in 2015, when caste slurs was also brought under its ambit. But conviction rates remain low and many activists complain that local police and law administration often dilute provisions and conduct shoddy investigation, resulting in high rates of acquittal.

In 2016, for example, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) recorded that the national rate of conviction for cases filed under the SC/ST Act stood at 15.4%. In contrast, conviction rate under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act stood at 33.3% and the Electricity Act was 89.8%. In the same year, around 1,300 people were convicted under the act and more than 7,000 people were acquitted, recorded the NCRB.

In Tuesday’s judgment, the court noted that the NCRB had recorded that in 2016 among the cases filed for crimes against scheduled caste persons, 5,347 cases were found to be false and 912 of the ST cases were found to be false. The bench underlined the need to provide safeguards in view of the misuse observed in the last three decades.

To protect the liberty of individuals, the bench said a public servant can only be arrested after the approval of the appointing authority. In case of a non-public servant, the approval of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) is necessary. A permission to arrest may be granted in appropriate cases but with recorded reasons, which must be served upon the accused and also to the court. Such reasons must be scrutinised by the magistrate for permitting further detention.

The apex court also made it mandatory for the police to hold a preliminary enquiry, not exceeding a week.

The could was hearing a petition filed by Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, who challenged a Bombay high court order that refused to quash an FIR against him under the Act. The complainant in that case was a member of the SC community and had lodged the case after Mahajan refused to grant sanction to prosecute two other employees who had made adverse comments against the complainant. The SC allowed his appeal and quashed his case, terming it an “abuse of process of law.”

The order evoked mixed reactions.

Senior Supreme Court advocate CU Singh said the safeguard was required as far as arrests were concerned but for registration of FIRs, the court should not have given any directions to conduct a preliminary probe because it goes against a judgment of the Constitution Bench that made it mandatory for the police to register an FIR the moment a cognisable offence is alleged. “In the absence of empirical data, the court should not have held that the law is being misused,” he added.

Advocate Gopal Sankaranaryanan, another lawyer from the top court, said the judgment should be encouraged to check the misuse of law. “But my fear is this is difficult to enforce,” he said, referring to non-compliance by the police of a four-year-old verdict on dowry harassment that laid down guidelines to stop frivolous cases.

 

Ramesh Nathan, general secretary of the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, pointed out that the act was already not implemented properly. “There is a high rate of acquittal, including in well-known cases of massacre such as Laxmanpur Bathe in Bihar and Tsunduru in Andhra Pradesh,” he said. He added that the possibility of misuse existed in every legislation.

keyword: RAMPANT MISUSE 

[nallajamoon]

Just now, uttermost said:

yeah you can claim whatever you want, because you made a fool of yourself by not reading the article you posted, which made my point better than it made yours. lol.

you can even claim that I killed JFK.. such is the nature of claims. you previously claimed that dalits are slapping false atrocity cases. The truth is that, atrocity case is not very easy to file. and they don't file it for bullshit reasons you tried to argue earlier.

when in fact, they should.

orei erri pushpam, poi read the rest of the articles i posted too. cheppa ga half baked delusion fcuk wit ani, utthaga anale. 

[uttermost]

2 minutes ago, nallajamoon said:

stupid delusional fcukface

The Supreme Court directs that public servants can only be arrested with the written permission of their appointing authority.

The anti-atrocities law, which protects Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from casteist slurs and discrimination, has become an instrument to “blackmail” innocent citizens and public servants, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment on Tuesday.

Issuing a slew of guidelines to protect public servants and private employees from arbitrary arrests under the Atrocities Act, the court directed that public servants can only be arrested with the written permission of their appointing authority. In the case of private employees, the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned should allow it.

Besides this precaution, a preliminary inquiry should be conducted before the FIR is registered to check whether the case falls within the parameters of the Atrocities Act and if it is frivolous or motivated.

The past three decades have seen complainants — who belong to the marginalised sections of society — use the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 to exact “vengeance” and satisfy vested interests, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit said in their 89-page judgment.

“Innocent citizens are termed accused, which is not intended by the legislature. The legislature never intended to use the Atrocities Act as an instrument to blackmail or to wreak personal vengeance,” the Supreme Court observed.

False complaints

Instead of blurring caste lines, the Act has been misused to file false complaints to promote caste hatred, the apex court said. The current working of Atrocities Act may even “perpetuate casteism” if it is not brought in line and the court needs to intervene to check the “false implication of innocent citizens on caste lines.”

“The Act cannot be converted into a charter for exploitation or oppression by any unscrupulous person or by the police for extraneous reasons against other citizens. Any harassment of an innocent citizen, irrespective of caste or religion, is against the guarantee of the Constitution. This court must enforce such a guarantee. Law should not result in caste hatred,” the Supreme Court held.

Penal provisions

The 1989 Act penalises casteist insults and even denies anticipatory bail to the suspected offenders. The law is therefore used to rob a person of his personal liberty merely on the unilateral word of the complainant, the court said. Justice Goel wrote that anticipatory bail should be allowed if the accused is able to prima facie prove that the complaint against him is malafide.

The court referred to how public administration has been threatened by the abuse of this Act. Public servants find it difficult to give adverse remarks against employees for fear that they may be charged under the Act.

WTF are you posting man? irrelevant bullshit.

you are making a total fool of yourself.

[nallajamoon]

[nallajamoon]

1 minute ago, uttermost said:

WTF are you posting man? irrelevant bullshit.

you are making a total fool of yourself.

orey now that your BS has been caught in public, ippudu adi BS aaa. sare ga poi next fake case ela pettalo sketch esuko po

[nallajamoon]

2 minutes ago, uttermost said:

WTF are you posting man? irrelevant bullshit.

you are making a total fool of yourself.

arey idiot, since u can't read without exposing the idiot that u r, posting it here again

Penal provisions

The 1989 Act penalises casteist insults and even denies anticipatory bail to the suspected offenders. The law is therefore used to rob a person of his personal liberty merely on the unilateral word of the complainant, the court said. Justice Goel wrote that anticipatory bail should be allowed if the accused is able to prima facie prove that the complaint against him is malafide.

The court referred to how public administration has been threatened by the abuse of this Act. Public servants find it difficult to give adverse remarks against employees for fear that they may be charged under the Act.

[uttermost]

you are posting complete random nonsense, and expecting me to read that sh1t. lol you are.

this "RAMPANT MISUSE" taht you highlighted from the recent crap you posted is in odds with your first post.

so which do you want me to respond to? haha..

dude, give it up. you are obviously not used to actually arguing. you are only designed to spout swear words. 

[nallajamoon]

Just now, nallajamoon said:

arey idiot, since u can't read without exposing the idiot that u r, posting it here again

Penal provisions

The 1989 Act penalises casteist insults and even denies anticipatory bail to the suspected offenders. The law is therefore used to rob a person of his personal liberty merely on the unilateral word of the complainant, the court said. Justice Goel wrote that anticipatory bail should be allowed if the accused is able to prima facie prove that the complaint against him is malafide.

The court referred to how public administration has been threatened by the abuse of this Act. Public servants find it difficult to give adverse remarks against employees for fear that they may be charged under the Act.

SC clear says ela misuse ayyindo ani, inka BS ani ochi eragamaku already nee kampu tho gabbu lepinchav ee DB motham burada pandi yedava. 

[nallajamoon]

Just now, uttermost said:

you are posting complete random nonsense, and expecting me to read that sh1t. lol you are.

this "RAMPANT MISUSE" taht you highlighted from the recent crap you posted is in odds with your first post.

so which do you want me to respond to? haha..

dude, give it up. you are obviously not used to actually arguing. you are only designed to spout swear words. 

arey oo picha na dash, aa random nonsense anedi neeku suit avvaledani random nonsense ayipotunda ra erri naa pithre. adi SC decide chesi cheppindi ra picha tughlaq, lol. 

ur lie has been caught in public, and you got ass whooped as u always usually do end up being. go and hide inside ur closet now

[nallajamoon]

1 minute ago, uttermost said:

you are posting complete random nonsense, and expecting me to read that sh1t. lol you are.

this "RAMPANT MISUSE" taht you highlighted from the recent crap you posted is in odds with your first post.

so which do you want me to respond to? haha..

dude, give it up. you are obviously not used to actually arguing. you are only designed to spout swear words. 

LOL shows clearly what's going on, neeku savory ga ledu ane ga ee munda edupu. rendu teerigga chadivi ochi ikkada eduvu why sc/st's misusing this law is a great thing for humanity ani. as i don't expect anything better from you.