Lawyer Sentenced to Life Imprisonment for Misuse of SC/ST Atrocities Act
.webp)
Lawyer Sentenced to Life Imprisonment for Misuse of SC/ST Atrocities Act
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted with the object of shielding historically marginalized communities from systemic exploitation. However, the misuse of such protective legislation can undermine the credibility of the law and corrode public trust in the justice delivery system. A recent judgment from Lucknow has once again highlighted this concern, where Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi sentenced Advocate Parmanand Gupta to life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5.1 lakh for deliberately misusing the SC/ST Act by orchestrating false cases in collusion with a complainant.
The facts revealed that Gupta, in active connivance with a Dalit woman, had filed twenty-nine fabricated criminal cases, eighteen of which were instituted directly by him while the woman lodged eleven more. Several of these cases included serious allegations such as rape and molestation, but upon investigation, they were found to be false and motivated by an underlying property dispute involving Gupta’s wife. The court, after careful scrutiny, concluded that the complaints were maliciously contrived with the sole purpose of harassment and personal gain.
The co-accused woman was acquitted but released on bail after furnishing sureties of ₹20,000, though she was cautioned against repeating such conduct. Gupta, on the other hand, was convicted under Section 248 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for false accusation with intent to harm, Section 217 of the BNS for furnishing false information to public authorities, and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act for aggravated misuse of provisions intended to protect vulnerable communities. The sentence awarded was life imprisonment with a substantial fine, marking a stern response to the gravity of the offence.
In his observations, Judge Tripathi remarked that a single malicious actor functions like “a drop of poison in an ocean of milk,” stressing that misuse of protective laws not only harms individuals but also diminishes the sanctity of social justice legislation. He underlined that statutory protections meant as a shield for the oppressed must not be weaponized into instruments of personal vendetta. The judgment, therefore, carries both punitive and symbolic weight, sending a strong message that deliberate misuse of law will not be tolerated, particularly when committed by an officer of the court who is expected to uphold its dignity.
The court did not confine itself merely to awarding punishment but also laid down broader safeguards to curb similar misuse in the future. Directions were issued to the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to consider disciplinary proceedings against Gupta, including debarment from practice. The Lucknow Police Commissioner was instructed to ensure that records of multiple FIRs filed by the same complainant be prominently reflected at the stage of registration and investigation, especially in matters involving sexual offences under the SC/ST Act. Significantly, the court also recommended the introduction of artificial intelligence-based monitoring systems to detect repetitive patterns of false complaints, a forward-looking step aimed at enhancing procedural integrity.
This judgment resonates with earlier judicial concerns over misuse of the SC/ST Act. In Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 6 SCC 454, the Supreme Court had acknowledged the possibility of misuse while framing safeguards against arbitrary arrests. Similarly, the Allahabad High Court in 2023 cautioned against the growing trend of filing false cases to obtain compensation under the Act, emphasizing the need for stricter scrutiny of complaints at the FIR stage. The present ruling aligns with these judicial pronouncements by reaffirming the necessity of balancing the protection of genuine victims with deterrence against abuse.
The significance of this verdict lies in multiple dimensions. It reinforces that members of the legal profession, who are custodians of justice, will face exemplary punishment if they betray their duties and exploit protective legislation for personal motives. It strengthens procedural integrity by introducing mechanisms like AI monitoring and mandatory reporting of repeated false complaints. Most importantly, it restores public confidence by ensuring that protective statutes remain a shield for the vulnerable rather than a sword for malicious litigants.
The decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Parmanand Gupta thus stands as a precedent that not only punishes wrongdoing but also safeguards the sanctity of social justice legislation. It demonstrates the judiciary’s dual commitment—on one hand, to protecting marginalized communities from genuine atrocities, and on the other, to ensuring that the law is not weaponized for harassment. The judgment will likely serve as an important reference point in future jurisprudence concerning the misuse of protective statutes and the preservation of judicial integrity.
✍️ Authored by Advocate Abhishek Jat
Copyright Notice: © 2025 Abhishek Jat, Advocate. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author. Unauthorized use or reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited and may result in legal action.
Comments
Post a Comment