Fresh plea in SC for review of controversial SC/ST Act verdict

The fresh plea, moved by the original complainant on whose FIR the case had commenced and finally reached the apex court, has claimed that full text of the FIR which was originally in Marathi language was not made available to the top court "deliberately".

In its March 20 verdict, the apex court had allegedly diluted the provisions of the SC/ST Act relating to arrest and certain safeguards were put in place for lodging of FIR under the law.

After the verdict, several states were rocked by violence and clashes on April 2 following a 'Bharat Bandh' call given by several SC/ST organisations protesting the top court's order, which had claimed at least eight lives and injured hundreds.

The Centre and some states have also sought review of the judgement.

The Centre had on April 12 told the apex court that its judgement has "diluted" the provisions of the law, resulting in "great damage" to the country, and steps may be taken to correct it.

The apex court, which has agreed to hear Centre's review petition, had earlier said it would not hear any plea filed by those who were not a party in the case.

In the fresh plea seeking recall of the verdict, the original complainant B K Gaikwad, has claimed that the petitioners before the apex court had filed a "truncated and forged FIR deliberately" and hence, committed a "fraud".

"The said forgery is in relation to the material fact, particulars namely being the allegation of mala fide which would have substantially affected the outcome of the said SLP (special leave petition)," the plea claimed.

"The full text of the FIR was not made available to this Court by the Respondent number one herein/petitioner with the mala fide intention to get the particular outcome of the case, thereby misleading this Court to quash the FIR registered against him," it alleged.

On April 3, the apex court had refused to keep in abeyance its verdict, saying those agitating against its order putting in place certain safeguards on arrests under the Act may not have read the judgement or could have been misled by "vested interests".

The top court had also asserted that "no provisions of SC/ST Act have been diluted" while clarifying that additional safeguards had been put in place "to protect the fundamental rights" of innocents.