Atrocities Act: Appointing spl counsel on victim's request not against law

The Karnataka High Court has said that appointing an advocate as special counsel on the request of the victim is not against the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Rules. The court said this while rejecting the petition filed by four accused persons.

The petitioners, residents of Jayapura village of Koppa taluk in Chikkamagaluru district, are accused in a case registered against them in 2019, under the provisions of SC and ST (POA) Act. The special counsel was appointed by the deputy commissioner on April 3, 2021 based on the request made by the complainant.

The petitioners contended that the advocate, appointed as special counsel, had earlier appeared as a counsel for the complainant in a civil case and hence he could not have been appointed as the special counsel in this case. It was further argued that the state government had already appointed a panel of advocates on behalf of the prosecution and the public prosecutor was also appointed.

Rejecting the petition, Justice K Natarajan said that Rule 4 (5) of SC/ST Rules empowers the Deputy Commissioner to appoint an eminent lawyer on behalf of the victim and the same cannot be misunderstood to be against the enactment.

Also Read | Seized vehicles shouldn’t lie idle in front of police stations: Karnataka HC orders release

“When the legislature has framed the Special Acts and the Rules to safeguard the interest of the victims/downtrodden people of the offences under the SC and/ST Act, denying the opportunity of appointment of the counsel is against the object of the legislature in enacting Special Act and Rules,” the court said.

Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the court further said that when the accused is entitled for an eminent advocate, the opportunity cannot be denied to the victim.

“The SC/ST Rules also empower the Deputy Commissioner to appoint an eminent lawyer on behalf of the victim under clause (5) of Rule 4 of the SC/ST Rules. Therefore, it cannot be misunderstood that appointing an advocate on the request of the victim is against the SC/ST Act and Rules and the Government is burdened by spending more money towards the advocate fee, when the State itself wants to double safeguard the interest of the members of the SC/ST category people by preventing them from the harassment as well as atrocities over the SC/ST members,” the court said.