Why Death Penalty Only To Persons Who Aren't SC/ST? Supreme Court Questions Basis For Classification In SC/ST Act Provision

The provision under scrutiny, Section 3(2)(i), mandates a death sentence only for individuals outside the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community who falsely implicate a member of the community in a case that results in their execution.

The provision reads as follows :

(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--

(i) gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to be convicted of an offence which is capital by the law for the time being in force shall be punished with imprisonment for life and with fine; and if an innocent member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe be convicted and executed in consequence of such false or fabricated evidence, the person who gives or fabricates such false evidence, shall be punished with death;

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan, hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, questioned the basis of classification.

"Suppose, false evidence is given by a SC/ST member which cause the execution of a SC/ST member? Then no death penalty. What is the reasonable classification here?," Justice Surya Kant asked.

Justice Kant asked the Attorney General to give a note on "why there should a discrimination between SC/ST and non-SC/ST person under the legal person if the offence is the same".

The top law officer said, “I am not talking about the merits of the matter today. Ultimately, when it comes to the death penalty, a very high level of scrutiny would be required. We are not talking about an ordinary penal provision.”

However, the bench pointed out that all cases of death penalty need not reach the Supreme Court. The bench asked the AG to find out how many prosecutions have happened under this provision.

The court also suggested that the Parliament could consider amending the provision to establish a fixed jail term instead. A longer jail term, as envisioned in the Supreme Court's Swamy Shraddananda ruling, could be imposed beyond the usual 14-year limit for remission eligibility or even life imprisonment, the bench further suggested, urging the attorney-general to engage in consultations and gather statistics on whether any convictions had occurred under the contested provision.

“Alright, you prepare a note and we will take it up on another day,” Justice Kant told Attorney-General Venkataramani, before directing the matter to be posted for further hearing after six weeks.

Case Details

Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice Secretary | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 103 of 2019