Site news


Picture of System Administrator
by System Administrator - Tuesday, 27 December 2016, 8:05 AM

By : M.S.Yatnatti Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru : Stringent punishment for atrocities on SC, ST under new Act .BBMP giving contract and recalling it within two days without any reason is economic and social boycott of SC ST community and is punishable under new amendment brought by Modi government. An Act which provides for stringent action against those committing atrocities against SC and ST communities or indulging in actions which are derogatory to their dignity, including social or economic boycott, has came into effect since January 2016 .The PM Modi is fighting corruption but Okalipuram BJP corporator reportedly is accused of huge corruption in allotting a SWM Contract to a forward community by cancelling contract given to SC ST Community within two days .Reportedly Complaint is filedby chiranjivi againstasMr Shivaparakash corporator Ward 96 BBMPWard Number:  96 Ward Name:  Okalipuram Ward Area(SQKM):  0.83 Assembly Constituency:  Gandhinagar Name:  Sri V Shiva Prakash Address:  #66/62, 1st Main Road, 2nd Stage, Okalipuram, Bengaluru-560021Phone Number:  9845101855 used name callingshouting against the SC ST community by saying Holiya in full public view and when chranjivitelephonedcorporator repeated same words and he reportedly said that that hewill not allow JC to give Contracts to holiya and putting pressure on Joint commissioner to cancel the contract awarded to SC ST Person Mr Naresh of sheshadripuram attracts criminal provisions of SCs and STs, under Chapter II of the PoA Act as Mr shivaprakash hasput pressure on JC and cancelling the contract and corporator has imposed or threatened a social or economic boycott of SC STperson or a family or a group belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe ix) Gives, any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;(x) Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;..Chiranjivi has reportedly requested policeto file FIR againstasMr Shivaparakash corporator under sectionPoA Act 2105 . As per Law at least 50 wards out of 198 wards Solid waste management contracts need to be given to SC ST Pourakarmikas. These offence punishable under Section 3(1) (ix) (x) (zc) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Filing of the First Information Report (FIR) is of paramount importance as the process of justice begins with registration of an offence with the police station. The procedure for filing FIR has been given under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.  The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 12.11.2013, in the W.P. (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008{Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.} has, inter-alia, held that, "Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation”. The offences under the PoA Act are cognizable. As such the affected person must file an First Information Report (FIR) in the Police Station of the area as per relevant provisions under Chapter II of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities){PoA} Act, 1989, as amended by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) (Amendment) Act, 2015(No. 1 of 2016). Chiranjeevi hasrequestedpolice to take immediate action on him and restore the contract issued to SC ST Pourakrmika Mr Naresh as per BBMP order dated 28-11-2016 .The necessary documents issued by BBMP Joint commissioner were reportedlyattached with complaint.

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 has been notified to be enforced with effect from January 26, 2016. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2015 was passed by the Lok Sabha on August 4, 2015 and by the Rajya Sabha on December 21, 2015. The amendment act received President's assent on December 31, 2015. It amends the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which prohibits the commission of offences against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and establishes special courts for trial of such offences. Apart from the offences already listed under the Act, the amendment Act adds that (i) intentionally touching an SC or ST woman in a sexual manner without her consent, or (ii) using words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature, or (iii) dedicating an SC or ST women as a devadasi to a temple, or any similar practice will also be considered an offence. Besides these, the Act adds new offences of atrocities such as (i) garlanding with footwear, (ii) compelling to dispose or carry human or animal carcasses, or do manual scavenging, (iii) abusing SCs or STs by caste name in public, (iv) attempting to promote feelings of ill-will against SCs or STs or disrespecting any deceased person held in high esteem, and (v) imposing or threatening a social or economic boycott. Preventing SCs or STs from using common property resources; entering any place of worship that is open to the public; or entering an education or health institution, has been categorized as an offence. In such circumstances, it prescribes that the onus to prove that he was not aware of the caste or tribunal identity of the victim, would be on the accused. The Amendment Act also includes in the Act, Chapter VI-A which provides for rights of victims and witnesses. Impending activities related to casting a fair vote would also be considered as an offence. The Amendment Act further specifies that an Exclusive Special Court must be established at the district level to try offences listed under the Act. An adequate number of courts are prescribed to be established to ensure that cases are disposed of within two months. Appeals from these Courts shall lie with the High Court, and must be disposed of within a period of three months.Reportedly Several lakh laborers' and daily wagers earners are on brink of starvation aftermath of demonetization. Today the right to property is not only a constitutional right, but also a human right, held the Supreme Court .A bank depositor keeps tax-paid money in his account. The funds may well be his/her salaries life's savings, or proceeds of provident fund, pension, provident fund, or any other legitimate income. These depositors are surely not Black money cash hoarders! Why punish them by imposing unreasonable restriction on withdrawal of cash? Just because there has not been any proper plan to print new currency notesfill bank vaults/ATMs with new cash after demonetization ? Who is responsible for this? .Does Section 26 (2) of the RBI Act, 1934, that triggered demonetisation, authorise the Central government to deprive a bank depositor to access his money in cash even for a split second? Surely not! Then, under which law are bank depositors being deprived of their right to properties, even partially or temporarily? The entire exercise, if by administrative instruction, seems to be unsustainable by law. Reportedly A disturbing feature in the aftermath of demonetisation has been the restrictions clamped on bank depositors from withdrawing cash freely. Bank deposits constitute property of the depositor. Under Article 300A of the Constitution, the right to property is a Constitutional right, which cannot be deprived save by the authority of law; this right cannot be deprived by administrative instructions. The Supreme Court has delivered several judgements on this constitutional principle. Reportedly Another challenge the central government faces is the overwhelming quantity of the old Rs 500 and 1000 notes being deposited in banks, giving rise to fears that the entire exercise may prove futile.