Is Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 applicable for a person Scheduled Cast or Scheduled Tribe itself?
<p><strong>Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.</strong><br>
I want to know if this act is applicable against who disrespecting own family members who is come under Scheduled Cast or Scheduled Tribe itself.<br>
Though act says that it's applicable if disrespecting one or it's family members.  </p>

<p><a href="https://tribal.gov.in/actRules/SCSTpoaact1989.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Article 3 of the law</a> states some of the the prohibited acts. However, subsections (1) limit the application of the law, stating &quot;Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe&quot;, which means that the restrictions only apply to those who are not a member of an SC or ST. The listed acts are not prohibited in the case of a Sentinelese person is forced by another Sentinelese person to eat an obnoxious substance, regardless of whether the two people are related. Moreover, because the law is stated as exempting <em>any</em> member of a SC/ST, a Toda may force a Sentinelese person to eat an obnoxious substance without violating the law. However, a Tamil person may not do so.</p>
<p>Assuming in a given case that the family member is not a member of an SC/ST, then we have to turn to the nature of the prohibited acts. &quot;Disrespecting&quot; a person is pretty open-ended: certainly forcing a person to eat an obnoxious substance is one way of disrespecting them. Normal usage of &quot;disrespect&quot; would limit that term to actions like insulting. The Act probits force-feeding, excreting, stripping, dispossessing from land, enslaving, interfering with voting, vexatious litigation, false reports etc. Item (x) identifies &quot;intentionally insult[ing] or intimidat[ing]
with intent to humiliate a member of
a  Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
in any place within public view&quot;, which might qualify (the law does not say that the &quot;public view&quot; must be composed of non-SC/ST persons, so local humiliation would count). This is the closest that one can come to a prohibition against &quot;disrespecting&quot;.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://tribal.nic.in/DivisionsFiles/mj/10-preventionofAtrocities.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2014 Amendment</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>(u) by words either written or spoken or by signs or by visible
representation or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote feelings
of enmity, hatred or ill-will against members of the Scheduled Castes
or the Scheduled Tribes;</p>
<p>(v) by words either written or spoken or by any other means disrespects
any late person held in high esteem by members of the Scheduled Castes
or the Scheduled Tribes;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As you can see, (v) has limited applicability. Promoting feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will goes beyond simple disrespect.</p>
<p>In short, in some instances, a prohibited act may constitute disrespecting, but not all acts of disrespecting are prohibited. Moreover, the actor would have to be outside the SC/ST part of the population. There is no &quot;family members are exempt&quot; exemption to the legal requirements, and the &quot;not SC/ST&quot; exemption grants immunity to <em>any</em> SC/ST member, and does not grant immunity to a member of an OBC.</p>

india family-law harassment indian-penal-code