REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    2805            OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.6942 of 2005)

Sakti      ..Appellant

Versus

State of A.P. & Ors.  ..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of  

the Andhra  Pradesh  High Court  dismissing  the  writ  petition  filed by the  

appellant.  Prayer in the writ petition was as follows:

(1) to  appoint  an  Officer,  inspiring  confidence  in  accordance  with  

Section  21  of  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  (Prevention  of  

Atrocities)  Act,  1989  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘Central  Act’)  for  

initiating prosecution for contravention of the provisions of the Schedule  

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for  

ensuring  safety  to  the  S.Ts  residing  in  Jeelugumilli,  Buttaryagudem,  

Polavaram, T. Narasapuram and Gopalapuram Mandals of West Godavari  

District.

2

(2) to provide adequate legal aid to the persons subjected to atrocities, to  

enable  them to  avail  justice  and  consequently  declare  that  the  peaceful  

agitation  and  awakening  campaign  of  the  petitioner  organization  and  

followed  by  S.Ts.  for  restoration  of  lands  belonging  to  S.Ts  in  the  

furtherance of the prevention of atrocities under S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of  

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The High Court held that the provisions of the A.P. State Commission  

for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2003 (Act No.9 of 2003)  

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘State  Act’)  and  the  notification  issued  

thereunder  on  7.11.2003  constituting  a  Commission  is  to  discharge  such  

functions  as  are  envisaged  under  Section  12  of  the  Act  which  are  

comprehensively enough.  Therefore, it was observed that the appellant can  

approach the Commission for redressal of its grievances.

4. Stand of the learned counsel for the appellant in essence is that the  

State  and  the  Central  Act  operate  in  different  fields  and,  therefore,  one  

cannot be a substitute  for the other.   Learned counsel  for the respondent  

submitted that  some amount  of  overlapping is  there  and,  therefore,  there  

cannot be any doubt about the adequacy.   

3

5. In the State Act Section 12 reads as follows:

“12. Functions of the Commission :- The Commission  

shall perform the following functions, namely:-           

xxx xxx xxx

(b) to investigate  and monitor  all  matters relating to  

the  safeguards  provided  for  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  

Scheduled  Tribes  under  the  Constitution  or  under  any  

other law for the time being in force or under any order  

of the Government and to evaluate the working of such  

safeguards.

6. So far as Central Act is concerned, Section 21 reads as follows:

“21.  Duty  of  Government  to  ensure  effective  

implementation of the Act – (1) Subject to such rules as  

the  Central  Government  may make in  this  behalf,  the  

4

State  Government  shall  take such measures as  may be  

necessary for the effective implementation of this Act.   

(2) In  particular,  and  without  prejudice  to  the  

generality of the foregoing provisions, such measure may  

include, -

(i) the  provision  for  adequate  facilities,  

including  legal  aid,  to  the  persons  subjected  to  

atrocities  to  enable  them to  avail  themselves  of  

justice;

(ii)  the  provision  for  travelling  and  

maintenance expenses to witnesses, including the  

victims of atrocities, during investigation and trial  

of offences under this Act;

(iii)  the provision for the economic and social  

rehabilitation of the victims of the atrocities;

iv) the appointment of officers for initiating or  

exercising  supervision  over  prosecutions  for  the  

contravention of the provisions of this Act;

5

  (v) the  setting  up  of  committees  at  such  

appropriate  levels  as  the  State  Government  may  

think fit to assist that Government in formulation  

or implementation, of such measures;

(vi)  provision  for  a  periodic  survey  of  the  

working of the provisions of this Act with a view  

to  suggesting  measures  for  the  better  

implementation of the provisions of this Act;

(vii) the  identification  of  the  areas  where  the  

members  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  the  

Scheduled  Tribes  are  likely  to  be  subjected  to  

atrocities and adoption of such measures so as to  

ensure safety for such members.

(3) The Central Government shall take such steps as may  

be necessary to co-ordinate the measures taken by the State  

Governments under sub-section (1)

6

(4) The Central Government shall, every year, place on the  

table of each House of Parliament a report on the measures  

taken by itself and by the State Governments in pursuance  

of the provisions of this section.”

7. A bare perusal of the two provisions i.e. Section 12 of the State Act  

and  Section  21  of  the  Central  Act  leaves  no  manner  of  doubt  that  they  

operate in two different fields.  So far as Section 21 of the Central Act is  

concerned, it is the duty of the State Government to take such measure as  

may be necessary for effective implementation of the Act and that includes  

the appointment of the officers in initiating or exercising  for supervision  

over prosecutions for the contravention of the provisions of the Act.

8. Section 12(b) of the State Act relates to investigation and monitoring  

of all matters relating to safeguards provided for the Scheduled Castes and  

Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution or under any other law for the time  

being in force or under any order of the Government and to evaluate the  

working of such safeguards.         

7

9. Above being  the  position,  we direct  the  State  Government  to  take  

immediate steps for appointment in terms of Section 21(2) of the Central  

Act as early as practicable preferably within six months from today.   

10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………………….J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, April 24, 2009

8